Question: Should election day be a national holiday?

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.

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 Although the original reasons for a Tuesday election are outdated, this does not mean that other reasons have not also come into play as times have changed.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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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...

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

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.

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.

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)

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?

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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…centuries 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 –nor 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…" 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…" 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

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.

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.

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.

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 ‘religious’ day worthy of commemoration would be a statement that one particular religious persuasion was in some way superior to others.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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...

Title: The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Content: Pro established that the Government shall observe “NO public holiday,” provide “no public funds for Christmas trees,” and grant “no official acknowledgement of the day.”Pro 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 “why” 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.

Title: Voting should be compulsory in the UK Content: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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’ll 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 “even for” non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights Putting up “Christmas” 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 “Christmas” 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 “core objective of U.S. foreign policy” (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...

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 .

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...

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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]

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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

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

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? . ..

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.

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.

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.

Title: Primaries in US elections Content: The primary system pushes elections back in the calendar

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...

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.

Title: Abortion is not a woman's right Content: Let the polls be open

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.

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.

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!

Title: The poor (in this case, poor means illiterate) should not vote. Content: They should vote

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.

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...

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

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.

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...

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.

Title: Embracing cell phones in school Content: time to vote people

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! ;)

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...;.

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.

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.

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...

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: “The Federal Government does not force it's [sic] employees to "celebrate this religious festival". The paid holiday period can…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.” Thank goodness! Imagine a state of affairs where citizens were actually driven into churches and forced to pray! You’re right, Heineken. That would be much, much worse. It’s 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: “not all Federal Offices close down for the Holidays… All Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that do not submit an official request for Holiday leave, will be required to report for normal duty.” I’m sure you’re right, Heineken, that they don’t stand down the entire military for Christmas, or indeed for any federal holiday. I suppose they keep the essential services running. I don’t really see how that affects the argument, though. Con said: “Pro must show that…mandatory leave is viewed negatively by the employee.” You astonish me. I would never have thought you would put a citizen’s 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’s 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: “The 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.” 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’t have to subsidize it. Actually, according to your own sources, “holiday sales” mean all sales in November and December and “Holidays during this period include Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa.” 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’s though sales or income tax, non-Christians are subsidizing this religious festival. 2. We’re 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’s the principle of the thing. Citizens can’t 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’t alone in having gift-giving festivals. The government doesn’t 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: “The Jewish Holiday of Purim…Hanukkah…Eids…Diwali far exceeds Christmas in extravagance and duration. The Chinese New Year celebrates elaborately with gifts and festivities.” So true. So many wonderful cultural and religious festivals that thrive without government interference! Why can’t Christmas be like that too? Con said: “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… 80% of Americans observe the Holidays for non-religious reasons. Christmas is not religious, it's a commercial Holiday.” I’m sure you’re 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: “ I challenge my opponent to provide this official federal designation…This is a straw-man argument. No such federal position, law, guideline or clause (no pun intended) exists.” I’m 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. “Christmas 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.” http://www.usa.gov... What’s a “straw man argument”? It sounds bad, almost as if you’re accusing me of making things up. But I’ve included sources all along. Con said: “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.” Ah. So that’s the difference between a “national holiday” and a “federal holiday”. Thanks. That’s 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.

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!"

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.

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.

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 – including the UK where the NOP poll was conducted – 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’ favourite pastimes[iii]. [i] ACAS Guidance on Sunday Working [ii] Estate of Thornton v. Calder, Inc. (1985) and others [iii] “Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009”. Landmark Research.

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; carï¿½ing 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.

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: “Such 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).” 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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?....

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.

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...

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... )

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 !

Title: have no elections rather than sham elections Content: Some kind of election is more likely to lead to real democracy than no election

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. :)

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?