text,y,yhat
"It adds jobs by creating new demand for goods.  The party primary system provides these safeguards.  They let a tiny handful of voters make decisions for everyone.  Legislators estimate potential savings of $5 million to $10 million every election cycle.  The farm subsidy policy of the government essentially ensures that farmers will make a profit on whatever they produce.  Crime victim protection from liability for damagesthis measure will allow all arizonans, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in a single open primary for the candidates of their choice.  In theory, party primaries help hold politicians accountable and guarantee a vigorous debate over competing ideologies and proposed solutions.  Proposals included abolishing the electoral college, rotating interregional primaries, nation-wide early voting and absentee ballots, mail-in and internet voting, voting machines with paper trails, and voter registration list improvements.  2.  this act allows for others to be given the temporary power to administer and/or certify an election to replace those vacant offices as needed.  At the same time, grandfather clauses assured the right to vote to many impoverished, ignorant, and illiterate whites.  ""(abolishing the system) will make elections favorable to those who have a localized power base, and set a high entry barrier for women and newcomers,"" said rep.  It encourages commerce by giving consumers more purchasing power.  Mr.  irish said doing away with primary races in nonmayoral years would save money.  It allows people with lower incomes to be able to purchase more than they could before, and live a better life.  Runoffs are a waste of tax dollars, and eliminating them could free up money to use in replacing the flawed punch-card elections system.  A primary vote gives every one in every party equal opportunity and people more of a voice in national elections.  The commissioners have estimated that abolishing the positions will save county taxpayers $80,000 per year.  ""i think we could have saved a lot of money by abolishing it.  In one county alone, the savings by abolishing the offices were estimated at $50,000 a year.  Give every candidate equal footing and the local primary will determient where and how the people support its representatives.  Such measures as the poll tax, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and the white primary proved especially effective in disfranchising blacks.  Commissioners upon voting for the abolition of the office last year touted the move as a cost savings and a means to improve office efficiency.  If five people run, it's conceivable that one could win with as little as 21 percent of the votes.  Based on low turnout at township elections it suggests that people are satisfied with the job being done.  Commissioners from both counties said abolishing the offices would save more than $20,000 a year.  Plus, it also effectively closes the domestic market to foreign farmers, espeically those form the third world.  But stringer argued that there are other ways to increase voter turnout, such as ""same-day voter registration"" and ""campaign finance reform. "".  But reformers better watch what they wish for: an academic study warns that nonpartisan elections create a less informed electorate, resulting in less competitive local elections.  It allowed the south to develop barriers to voting that would eliminate blacks' votes without coming into conflict with the 15th amendment.  The party primary system works well for the parties.  This reform will promote open government and encourage the election of candidates who will work together for the good of the state.  The legislation would remove this barrier to voting to impose a nationwide requirement that states issue qualified voters an absentee ballot on demand.  Background cross-filing is the practice that allows candidates for political office to register as candidates in multiple parties in primary elections. ",3.066666603088379,3.7003317
"Genetic engineering is dangerous as it allows designer humans to be created.  this is in turn, opens the door for abuse, e. g.  designer human soldiers.  We should not be messing with nature even if we have the ability to do so.  Genetic engineering should be banned as it can lead to serious flaws in the long run.  Genetic engineering should be banned as the long term effects on isolated populations are still uncertain and it is unethical to experiment with humans.  We should further exploit genetic engineering because it could lead to huge improvements in the future.  Genetic engineering could significantly reduce the genetic diversity of the human population.  Genetic engineering in humans could be used to create terrorists.  We should further exploit genetic engineering because we are currently unaware of the full implications of it yet.  We should further exploit genetic engineering because it will allow us to make big strides in medicine and other fields of scientific endeavour.  We should further exploit genetic engineering because it allows a person to be ""designated"" to a persons personal style, as opposed to a custom-made one.  We should further exploit genetic engineering to see if we can make it work.  It allows those who wish to do harm to those who do not want to be caught.  Genetic engineering is a step too far in terms of altering an individuals identity, it should be banned.  We should not continue to practice genetic engineering because it is unproven.  Genetic engineering should be banned as it can cause genetic issues if not used correctly.  We should further exploit genetic engineering since we now have an understanding of the human genome and its implications may lead to major advances in the future.  We should further exploit genetic engineering since it will help us find a cure for serious diseases.  We should further exploit genetic engineering because if it creates a monster that is extremely rare, it opens the door to many more powerful and intelligent forms of life-span extension.  We should not leave the earth in the hands of genetic engineers.  Genetic engineering is too risky to the long term effects of the human gene.   its also open to abuse in other ways.  We should still be careful to avoid creating a frankensteins monster.  it could be a fatal flaw.  Genes are powerful and will create humans beings who are more powerful than they already are due to their superior intellect and unique perspective.  Genetic engineering is immoral, and could cause genetic issues.  We should further exploit genetic engineering as it will lead to more successful human cloning.  We should be doing everything possible to ensure that genetic engineering doesnt go on.  We should further exploit genetic engineering as it is important to understand the full implications of such an act for an individuals individual.  Genetic engineering has no place in a society where a child is allowed to live normal lives as a child should.  Genetic engineering should be further developed to ensure that all non-invasive, non-invasive, and as promoting ""self-healing"".  Genetic engineering is unethical because it could cause serious flaws in the human race.  We should have genetic engineering to make sure that nobody is going to make a profit off of it.  Genetic engineering is unethical and could be used for racial or religious purposes.  Genetic engineering should be exploited to create a human that has the best chance of retaining all of the traits of its kind.  Genetic engineering should be done to ensure that all who seek to destroy the human race are stopped.  We should  exploit genetic engineering as it will ensure that all the children of the world are equal. ",2.4666666984558105,4.2168593
"""this has greatly damaged the nation's credibility around the world.  Hundreds have been returned to their home countries but u. s.  officials say some are such serious security threats that they cannot be released for the foreseeable future.  Supporters, however, say military courts unfairly limit defendants' rights and contend that federal courts are just as capable of bringing suspects to justice.  The demonstrators, many of whom were relatives of gitmo prisoners highlighted the failure of the us government to fulfil its obligations to close the prison in cuba.  Smith said the detention centre is ""an international eyesore that undermines our national security objectives, damages our credibility with regard to human rights and international law, and wastes taxpayer dollars. "".  The amnesty international in a statement said that guantánamo bay had become a symbol of injustice and abuse in washington's ""war on terror"".  Rather than make the united states safer, the image projected by this facility puts us at greater risk.  But critics of the decision by then president george w.  bush to send detainees to guantanamo, where most have been held without trial, say the move was ""catastrophic. "".  ""it caused incalculable damage to this country's reputation around the world,"" says eugene fidell, a lecturer on military law at yale university.  Current and former prisoners have complained of abuse and torture; and in a 2005 amnesty international report the facility was called the ""gulag of our times"".  The other half may be doomed to keep \""festering\"" in detention for an indefinite period of time, she added.  Moreover, prisoners complain physical torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution.  Rather than keeping us more secure, keeping guantanamo open is harming our national interests. "".  As a result, dozens of detainees ended up committing suicide, which amnesty international said ""are the tragic results of years of arbitrary and indefinite detention. "".  The admiral also noted that some of guantanamo bay's prisoners are deemed high security threats.  Guantanamo's survivors suffer lasting effects to their mental and physical health.  Allegations of mistreatment and even torture - some of which have been levelled by fbi investigators - have rendered the prison a symbol of u. s.  injustice.  Critics have charged that detainees have been mistreated in some cases and that the legal conditions of their detentions are not consistent with the rule of law.  When any individual has those same human rights denied to them then it is an attack on the human rights of us all, as it undermines this concept of universality.  This clearly represents a fundamental breach of the human rights and civil liberties of those individuals and undermines any concept of protecting the human rights of the rest of us.  The economic cost: $800,000 spent annually on each detainee imprisoning a suspected terrorist at gitmo is about 30 times more expensive than keeping a captive on u. s.  soil.  The use of prolonged isolation, dogs, extreme temperatures and sleep deprivation amounts to torture, said the experts.  Many of these detainees say they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.  The report said detainees were forced to endure ""humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions. "".  The publication of photographs of prisoners being held at a us military camp in cuba has led to concern that their human rights are being abused.  Critics of the ndaa claim it could eventually be interpreted to imprison u. s.  citizens indefinitely without trial.  Red cross inspectors have alleged acts of torture consisting in sleep deprivation, beatings and locking in confined and cold cells.  Just to be clear: i believe the guantanamo bay camp to be totally unconstitutional, and the length of the detention of some of the prisoners there to be absolutely unjustifiable. ",4.5333333015441895,3.9565496
"We should protect the antarctic continent. It is a miracle that we've been able to preserve, up until now, an entire continent that human beings have yet been able to destroy, either with battles between countries over resources or with drilling and mining for commercial or industrial purposes. Antarctica is an island of sanity, and we must make sure that it remains this way. We're going to have one big argument in this speech and it is about the ever-present threat of escalation. So as stated in the info slide, as of now it is not exactly certain just how affluent antarctica is with natural resources. This means that there's basically two options. Either it is mostly just ice, in which case, you know, it's a shame to even try, and it's best just to keep antarctica as it is in the status quo, or that there's more than meets the eye there, and antarctica is rich with resources that can be used for commercial purposes or industrial purposes, and the truth is that this possibility is much more disturbing. Why? Because resources are, you know, the type of things that countries tend to covet, and they are one of the major causes, if not the major cause, for the outbreak of international conflicts. The current situation in antarctica, where there is a peaceful equilibrium without any passionate territorial claims to either party, is rather unique, and it stems from the big vagueness surrounding this continent and the question of just how wealthy it is. Seeing as no one knows for sure what can be found there, and seeing as there is an a genuine chance that the answer is, "" not too much "", like there's not a lot to be found, then it just doesn't pay off to any country to take the risk of breaking the existing international treaties and agreements. That is because countries are often risk-averse. However, the very moment that the current limitations are going to be lifted, and assuming it will be like assuming it will turn out that antarctica does have a lot to offer in terms of resources, then no new international global agreement would be able to guarantee the same amount of peaceful conduct because the effect of the uncertainty has been lifted and so, it's going to be to become a lot more tempting for countries to break those understandings and to make a move for it. All of this is especially true in the current reality in the global sphere in which we are witnessing a slow shift in power and a transition from a unipolar system to a bipolar system, that is the gradual rise of russia and china as global superpowers that challenge the western hegemony. Such periods are especially known as very sensitive and very flammable, because the different actors are not sure whether their allegiance should lie with the old power or with the new power, and so each superpower promotes like takes action in order to gain more power and more support. Bottom line: opening up the treaty on antarctica might lead to an inevitable process of escalation between countries that will result in a conflict. That is bad not just for antarctica, but for everybody. So please propose.",4.599999904632568,4.0859666
"We should not waste any more time than we already have and we should have a stable energy industry that can supply us with cheap, clean energy.  We should not waste any more than we already have and we should be doing it for our country.  We should further exploit the sustainability of the solar system to avoid potentially crippling consequences in the future.  We should not waste any more than we already have.  By exploiting the  financial benefits of renewable energy sources we will be able to power the economy and lower interest rates.  We should further exploit the energy of the world with nuclear weapons to make the world a safer place.  If we could only power the world with solar energy, we would all be damned.  This would allow us to have more access to technology and potentially new ideas.  We should exploit the lowest common denominator in society so that they may have some normal access to electricity.  The use of renewable energy sources should be mandatory in order to promote economic development.  We should explore the use of sustainable energies in all our industries to create new forms of art to explore new religious ideas.  We should explore the use of sustainable energies in society, they are much more abundant in the sun and are much better for the environment.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to power our economy.  It is important to maintain a stable climate and the ability to generate revenue from energy sources.  Sustainable energy is an important element of the modern world.  it provides a huge boost in terms of boosting scientific knowledge and technology.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to provide additional income to low and middle income families.  this would improve everyones access to electricity and the quality of life would improve.  We should do this because it would create jobs.  We should further exploit sustainability to power our world.   we should do this so that we can have a world where there is enough solar energy in the system to power our economy.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to power our economy, they are necessary to have a sustainable world.  We should look into ways of exploiting the least well off in society.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to produce more energy.  We should further exploit and improve the efficiency of nuclear weapons in order to have a better balance between the two super powers.  The exploitation of fossil fuels will lead to the end of the world.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to help our society.  We should not waste any more than we already have, burning fossil fuels is extremely wasteful.  We should exploit these renewables to power the world with more reliable energy.  We should exploit this wealth of knowledge and technology to drive innovation and create knowledge of the human intellect.  We should further exploit the solar resources so that we have more access to energy.  We should further exploit sustainable energies and reduce unnecessary spending.  We should be exploiting the natural resources we have access to.  We should exploit sustainable energies to help generate more power for our devices.  We should develop a solar system to generate additional revenue.  We should not keep subsidising the development of nuclear weapons because it creates a situation where they can potentially be developed by terrorists.  We should exploit sustainable energies to increase our energy output.  We should exploit sustainable energies to power the economy.  We should have a plan to power the world with solar power, wind, tidal and even nuclear power.  We should adopt solar power because it provides a major source of electricity in the country. ",4.666666507720947,4.358215
"I'm proud to support the motion that we should subsidize investigative journalism. I want to start this with an overview, though, of what the purpose of a sort of like press media is in any given western liberal democracy. We think the purpose of the press is to ensure equal access to strong information about current events to the citizenry. This is information, in general, is important as a right insofar as it is facilitative to other more basic rights, like the right to be represented well by your government in terms of the policies they pass. If we don't have access to correct information about what's going on in the world around us, we can't reasonably formulate decisions about our preferences that we can then express to elected officials. So it is always important to ensure that citizens within a democracy have access to as much and as much accurate information as possible. We think then that more funding for investigative journalism fulfills this necessity in three distinct ways. First is we believe that this leads to more accurate reporting. Investigative journalism, by its nature, caters to like a group of people, and specifically a group of news consumers, that are more concerned than the average person with the accuracy in their reporting. Investigative journalism, by its nature, is generally not as sensationalist as, say, like tabloid reporting or even like a mid-rate standard newspaper, like see, like, I don't know, USA today. So, this is going to be it - investigative journalism is going to be more concerned with like raw facts and like basic truths than your average reporting. This is important obviously because if your information is inaccurate and people are formulating decisions and preferences based on inaccurate information, you're not fulfilling the baseline needs I articulated at the top of this speech. The second thing that we think that investigative journalism does is have more specificity in the type of reporting. So what we mean by this is rather than sort of broad, overarching reported on, like, the themes of a presidency or like the broad ideology, we specifically get journalism that is more tailored to individual things that are more important in terms of what's happening. So rather than just being like "" trump is pulling out of the paris accords "", like maybe an investigative investigation into like why specific members of his cabinet had a vested interest in this. Like were there business ties involved in that decision? What were the underlying ideological bases? Which advisers had a more prominent role in the crafting of that decision? We think that this granularity in reporting is particularly important because it can often reveal things that a broad, overarching picture doesn't. We have a tendency to favor simplified narratives because they're easier to consume. But in reality, the fine details are important in both predicting future events and in understanding how we as citizens want things to change so the things that we don't like happening can stop happening. If you don't know that jared kushner is the reason a policy got passed, then you won't know to oppose jared kushner's presence in the white house. Our third and final point here is that we believe that investigative journalism is particularly apt at decreasing power imbalances in the type of information received. And what we mean by this is that generally wealthier people, people who are in positions of power, are more capable of accessing detailed information because they are proximate to it. Government officials obviously know more about government processes, because they are sort of like in the room where it happens. They are part of that process. We think, though, that citizens also have a right to that information because, as mentioned earlier, this is facilitative to exercising other basic rights. We think then that investigative journalism that goes behind the scenes and tells people this is how x, y and z happened, reduces the imbalance that creates systemic inequity in our society. We think that when wealthy people are disproportionate likely disproportionately likely to get information that allows them to express preferences and opinions, that systemically perpetuates this inequity that exists in our society. Proud to propose.",4.333333492279053,4.351198
"Bellmore said he has no opinion about fluoridated water, but notes that the end of fluoridation in Mt. 
A decision to end water fluoridation in New Plymouth is being hailed as the beginning of the end for the practice in New Zeal and. 
The Fluoride Action Network, an international coalition to end water fluoridation, does not list any water system in Northwest Missouri as having high fluoride levels. 
The Communities for Thriving Water Fluoride-Free San Marcos coalition has been working to end water fluoridation in the city, and its wish might be granted by the end of May. 
End of fluoride Fluoride in water is such a waste and unnecessary cost for the slight effect on a few children's teeth. 
In 2011, Fairbanks and Palmer city councils decided to end fluoridation of the drinking water. 
There was also health minister Yael German's decision to end the fluoridation of drinking water. 
Many are now installing efficient fluoride-blocking water filters in their home and supporting movements that call for the end of water fluoridation. 
The council voted 7 to 1 to end water fluoridation after they received 1557 submissions with the overwhelming majority against fluoride use. 
Port Angeles - The water fluoridation survey results are in, and of the 43 percent who responded, most want an end to the fluoridation of city water. 
So there is a strong case for councils to issue similar fluoride warnings and dosage information, but if they did it would spell the end of water fluoridation. 
Mr.  Hasan is counsel to the Concerned Residents of Peel to End Fluoridation, a group that has been dedicated to ending the artificial fluoridation of Peel's drinking water. 
Liesa Cianchino, Chair of the Concerned Residents of Peel to End Fluoridation stated today: ""Artificial water fluoridation is a serious health concern. 
The petition is his response to the council last month voting 7-1 to end fluoridation of the city's water. 
A coalition of environmental, medical and health groups along with the Fluoride Action Network is urging the EPA to end fluoridation of the public water supply. 
The majority of councils in Ireland voted to end water fluoridation but the law prevents them from taking action. 
Ms.  Cianchino, who is the Chairperson of Concerned Residents of Peel to End Water Fluoridation, states that the risk of harm posed by water fluoridation greatly exceeds its speculative benefits, and that water fluoridation is both unconstitutional and a violation of the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act. 
So, yes, Calgary's city council made a wise decision when it voted to end the fluoridation of city water. 
Independent group Fluoride Free Campaign wants to see an end to water fluoridation, describing it as an 'unnecessary health risk to people, animals and the environment'. 
Following the 2013 decision to end fluoridation Hamilton City Council told the public the six reasons why the councillors voted to stop adding fluoride to their water supply. 
Pinellas commissioners voted to end the fluoridation of its drinking water to about 700,000 residents of the county and most Pinellas cities on Dec.  31. 
Officials in Ford City officials voted in December to end fluoridation when its new water plant goes online this year. 
Regionally, Sprovieri has been on the opposite side of the mayor on certain issues, most notably on his push to end water fluoridation in the public drinking supply. 
According to the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors, opponents fail about 80% of the time when they campaign to end a local water fluoridation policy. 
The court ruled that the new regulations will not only bring an end to mandatory fluoridation in Israel in 2014 but will also put an end to any fluoridation - mandatory or voluntary. 
New regulations, beginning August 26, will end fluoridation in Israel for 5. 3 million residents, says Fluoride Action Network. 
Cities around the country and world have opted to end fluoridation or never had it to begin with. 
",4.199999809265137,3.725721
"The technology behind ai is likely to fail, resulting in robots destroying human life.  Greater use of ai will lead to worsening inequality because large companies can make bigger profits using ai and the improved efficiency it can bring.  Intelligent ai is the greatest risk to the future of humanity.  Artificial intelligence will lead to more monopolies.  The advancement of ai will lead to job loss.  The development of true artificial intelligence might lead to the extinction of humanity.  Artificial intelligence is a terrifying problem and a threat to human civilization.  Artificial intelligence poses an existential threat to humanity.  Robots and ai will lead to unemployment.  The ultimate effect of ai could do more harm than good for people's jobs and livelihoods.  Increasingly powerful ai systems may lead to unintended and even disastrous consequences.  Use of ai may dilute the patient-provider relationship and potentially replace clinician roles in the future.  Intelligent machines will lead to a significant loss of production jobs across multiple industries.  Steady advances in ai and robotics threaten virtually every human vocation.  Artificial intelligence threatens to destroy mankind.  Intelligent machines could pose a risk to civilization.  The rapid development of ai could pose certain significant risks.  Artificial intelligence is a greater threat to civilisation than the north korean regime.  Intelligent machines might pose a threat to humanity.  Artificial intelligence represents an imminent threat to humanity.  Artificial intelligence is ''potentially more dangerous than nukes.  Artificial intelligence will reduce the number of jobs available to people without a college education.  Artificial intelligence will threaten all human jobs and could even spark a war.  The advancement of ai might steal jobs from humans.  The threat of artificial intelligence is more dangerous than that of north korea's nuclear ambitions.  Concerns were shared by elon musk, bill gates and steve wozniak who, along with more than 8,000 leading researchers and scientists, signed a letter warning that artificial intelligence can potentially be more dangerous than nuclear weapons.  Autonomous weapon systems powered by ai could shatter international laws and could create chaos everywhere.  Artificial intelligence would eventually render humans obsolete.  True ai represents the ""biggest risk to human existence.  The rise of artificial intelligence will lead to an increase in social engineering attacks, network penetrations, and data theft.  The development of ai could lead to the destruction of humanity by diminishing the value of human beings.  The advancement in ai might be dangerous to the human race in the future.  The integration of ai will result in a loss of jobs.  The rise of artificially intelligent machines could prove disastrous for humanity.  The threat that ai poses is too great to react to.  The quest for singularity and ai self-awareness is dangerous.  Artificial intelligence will eventually lead to jobs being automated - and then to unemployment.  Increased use of ai could lead to a loss of jobs and make workers redundant.  Machine intelligence will lead the optimal form of creative destruction.  Super-smart artificial intelligence (ai) could eventually replace humanity.  The growth of ai is the biggest threat to mankind.  Artificial intelligence is the greatest existential threat to human life in this century.  The creation of full artificial intelligence could threaten the existence of humanity.  The rise of ai could be dangerous.  The ai is completely moronic.  Artificial intelligence is one of the biggest threats facing the future of humanity.  Artificial intelligence is ""the greatest risk we face as a civilization.  The artificial intelligence is a much bigger threat than nuclear weapons.  Artificial intelligence will threaten the survival of human populations.  Artificial intelligence poses a threat to humanity.  Artificial intelligence should be viewed as a threat to the human race.  Artificial intelligence poses a threat. ",4.4666666984558105,4.8547845
"We should increase immigration to the united states. So by this we mean that the US should increase the quota for immigrants. Right now there is an overall quota of about six hundred thousand people per year who are allowed to immigrate to the US. We think that that quota should be vastly increased to as many as two and a half million people, much much higher than it is today. Secondly, through out our individual country quotas, which means that it's much easier to come to this country from bhutan than it is from china, because the quota is the same for every country. We think those quotas should be abolished completely. If we have two million people who want to come here from india we say let them. So three reasons why the US should do this. First, we tell you that immigration leads to economic growth. It's simple math that when you bring people to this country and have them get to work, that your overall domestic product increases because you have more people producing. But on top of that we tell you that the kind of people who are likely to give up their life in their home country and come to america are the sort of go getters who lead to economic growth. There's a reason that so many businesses in america are founded by immigrants or by their children. We tell you that ultimately these are people with drive and initiative who are very likely to take risks to start businesses, to work harder, to put in extra hours. That ultimately these are the kind of people that we want in our country: hardworking people who will ultimately grow the economy by having a greater output of their work than what we would have otherwise. We think it's silly to cap the amount of people who are allowed to come here when it means that we cap our own economic growth. Our second argument is about the humanitarian reasons, why the US should do this. Right now there are hundreds of thousands of syrians who need a place to live and the united states is a mostly empty country. We tell you that it is inexcusable for america, which has bountiful land and enough money to settle these people, not to let them come here to live in safety. We think that it's inexcusable to let people die around the world in wars partially caused by american intervention and then not let them move to this country. In particular, for places like vietnam and iraq that have been devastated by US intervention, we think that we owe it to those people to let them start a new life here because we damaged their ability to carry out their old life there. But aside from this, at the point where people have a right to live in freedom and safety, and at the point in which the US is mostly empty, particularly much of the west, we think that we should be bringing these people in, helping them get established, and that ultimately this would be beneficial for everyone. Our third and final argument, and I think that this is critical for the debate, is that immigration is part of what makes america, america. Almost everyone here has ancestors who immigrated voluntarily. We think that in the past the US has been an international center of economic growth and innovation because of the strong tradition of immigration. I told you about why immigrants are likely to work harder than other people because they're go getters by their very nature, but on top of that every new wave of immigration to the united states re-entrenches that culture of innovation. If you think about who goes to elite universities in america today, many people would say there's lots of asian people, but that's driven by the fact that the most recent waves of immigration have largely been asian. A hundred years ago, many people were resentful that there were so many jews in american universities, but that was partly driven by the fact that there was a large wave of jewish immigration. We tell you that ultimately new waves of immigration will ensure that we have more people pushing their children to succeed in the way that immigrant families tend to do. That their children will go to harvard, yale, stanford, wherever, and ultimately continue to ensure that the US is a center of innovation. But aside from that immigrants also bring a unique perspective to the united states, a global perspective. The idea that we should care about what happens around the world, that we shouldn't just isolate ourselves and let dictators or other horrible things go on unchallenged. So ultimately we think that immigrants bring a huge amount to the united states that makes us who we are as a country. For these reasons we think that we should increase immigration to the united states. Thank you.",4.733333110809326,4.453498
"They excelled in urban warfare and streetfighting, and were masters of utilizing the constricted and confined terrain of buildings, streets and sewers to their advantage.  Brainchild of martial art aficionado siblings brandon and jared schmelter, it prepares the learners for real and life-saving street combats.  Through practicing, a tutorial, and so on, it's possible for even a beginner of fighting games to quickly acquire the same knowledge as a skilled player.  Ice urban combat martial arts is now delivering innovative online street fighting lessons to individuals helping them to gain the confidence to face different situations.  We have so far helped hundreds of people to learn street fighting that would assure them protection in the hour of need.  Urban reign provides enough white-knuckle beat-'em-up street brawling in 100 missions to satisfy the most battle-hardened players.  The cityscape allows even a weak army to hold a line otherwise crushed by an attacker's flanking maneuvers in the open.  You're working alongside a partner, busting out combos and attacking lots of enemies&#array; i think we've managed to put together an attractive fighting game that nobody's ever seen before.  Motoyama: there are a lot of innovative ideas in urban reign that will make it a standard in next-generation fighting games.  It will also help your opponent beat your ass without having to touch you.  At the same time, a trained force can turn an urban warfare situation into one ripe with possibilities.  The minister also stressed the importance of inclusive urban development and empowering residents to solve their own problems.  ""urbanisation should not be viewed as a curse to this country, but rather as a blessing since urban areas are the engines of economic growth globally. "".  As it stands, urban reign delivers a fast, fun jaunt into the violent world of street fighting.  All these skills make the trainees master the art of street fighting which can come in handy at any given moment on the unsafe streets of today.  Finding the enemy first gives your squad a tremendous tactical advantage in an urban fight, since blundering into an enemy trap in a narrow alley is certain destruction.  If any one of them clearly falls america's way, there will be a quick, clean victory.  Fighting in villages and towns, therefore, requires greater tactical skill as all the areas on the urban battlefield can quickly become ""kill zones"" with little room for movement or escape.  The trainers at the center call this as a science of street fighting that can help their students to better take control of an offensive situation.  Each of the characters controls well, for example, and the fighting system keeps things simple without feeling uninspired.  The best thing about the combat system is that it does not burden the finances of the aspirant.  Advertising'urban reign' (ps2) brawls its way to storesurban reign promises to offer players non-stop, inner-city brawling action with no time restrictions or referees.  Therefore, it makes perfect sense to avail the martial arts video lessons and lectures from ice urban combat at incredibly low prices.  Close combat: first to fight utilizes authentic marine urban military doctrine, tactics and assets to save lives, take down insurgents and restore order.  It is an important military rule to occupy the high ground on a battlefield and in urban combat two or more story buildings can make excellent observation posts.  Ice urban combat martial arts has formulated a teaching system so simple and efficient that the trainees can learn street fighting at their own convenience.  Advertising'urban reign' (ps2) - screens & trailerurban reign promises to offer players non-stop, inner-city brawling action with no time restrictions or referees.  Ice urban combat martial arts strives to simplify online courses. ",2.933333396911621,3.8520288
"Subsequently, lower capital investment tends to reduce capital per worker, making workers less productive and forcing companies to cut real wages as lower productivity results in fewer profits.  This drives down the value of the stock market and lowers the rate of new investments and job creation.  And being the only companies in the world that have to pay taxes on their foreign earnings will make them much more competitive.  High corporate taxes reduce economic growth and job creation by lowering investment and wages.  To help low-income families, the state could improve an existing property tax credit program by expanding eligibility, making the credits more valuable, and improving participation rates.  The biggest may be that it would reduce those disincentives for companies to invest at home.  At the same time, accrual taxation would greatly simplify the tax code and limit certain tax avoidance strategies.  ""such a reform could raise a large amount of revenue and would improve economic efficiency by treating different investments more equally,"" pozen says.  Bushcrimefamily- the gop's favorite corporate tax idea helps outsource jobs.  Because they contribute to capital flight, high corporate tax rates also lower government revenue.  Such a limitation would raise enough revenue to allow a substantial reduction in the corporate tax rate, increasing the global competitiveness of the u. s.  Additional revenue could be raised by taxing the $2 trillion currently held overseas and allow the tax payments to be spread out over, say, 7 years.  Some corporations may respond to corporate tax increases by reducing their profit margins, which means fewer dividends and lower share prices for stockholders.  Furthermore, lower taxes on capital are generally associated with increased government tax revenues.  Firms can do so by cutting wages and benefits or by finding new sources of revenue by raising the prices of their products.  The carbon tax would help us slow global warming.  – the gop’s favorite corporate tax idea helps outsource jobs.  Nevertheless, this back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that limiting the deductibility of corporate interest expense could play a large role in rate-reducing corporate tax reform.  All these tax sources would be far more efficient than corporate taxes.  He adds that disallowing a modest portion of the interest deduction would also improve economic efficiency by reducing the tax code's large bias toward debt-financed investment.  This capital flight means fewer taxes are paid domestically.  Reducing the bias toward debt disallowing a modest portion of the interest deduction would also improve economic efficiency by reducing the tax code's large bias toward debt-financed investment.  It reduces the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and reduces or eliminates all taxes on overseas corporate profits.  This reduces demand for u. s.  workers, compared to what it would be if u. s.  tax rates were lower. "".  They can also make economies more attractive for foreign investment.  Such a limit would also reduce the tax bias in favor of debt by decreasing the effective tax rate on equity-without raising the average cost of capital in the u. s. "".  The study shows the u. s.  bears one of the highest corporate tax rates of any country, ""which encourages overseas investment, reduces demand for u. s.  workers, and lowers american wages. "".  Some of the tax breaks would allow businesses to reduce their tax burden by applying net operating losses from prior years.  That means ""revenue positive"" corporate tax reform that raises significant amounts of new tax revenue. "".  Corporate tax reform should result in increased tax revenues, even if the corporate tax rate is reduced.  His business tax reform, were it actually to include a corporate rate reduction, would raise small business taxes and cut corporate taxes. ",2.5999999046325684,3.8036928
"""unfortunately we do not have the resources to fend off a large company like twitter to maintain our mark which we believe whole heartedly is rightfully ours. "".  Csn prof.  misiek piskorski pointed out in class that 40% of facebook profiles are barren.  One big reason why people abandoned the service was that they couldn't figure out who to follow on twitter.  On the other hand, twitter will be unusually vulnerable to spam problems due to asymmetric ties and the ease with which bots can auto-search and @reply to public conversations.  3.  twitter is useless for group messaging.  The problem with abandoning social media accounts is that there's often nothing there that indicates they've been abandoned.  Scaling becomes an issue on extremely high traffic sites.  The worst damage you can do to your company brand is to give up on social media.  An additional downside of cyber bullying is that the perpetrator is usually able to stay anonymous, giving the victim little recourse but to abandon the platform all together.  Cyber bullying is unfortunately on the rise, with many teens being on the receiving end of harassing tweets.  Example: facebook cluttering the site with distracting, low-cpm ads or using profile/behavioral data to target ads in creepy ways.  In 2009, its retention rate was worse than myspace , threatening its ability to grow to critical mass.  Third, that their twitter activities yielded no monetary benefit.  Findings revealed an alarming abandonment rate: one in five restaurants abandoned their twitter accounts.  The truth is that learning to use twitter was really hard back then, and many new users abandoned the service.  That's a problem because up to 1 billion people - moms included - have tried twitter and largely abandoned it[3], leaving the service struggling to find new users.  <> switching off rails may not solve all of twitter's problems.  It's sort of a shame that, in a world where every twitter twist and turn makes news, the media didn't look too far behind the headline for reasons.  This final point is indefensible; all the prior arguments given are negative aspects of the service, along with vague allusions to positive elements found in twitter etc.  The problem with giver or taker is it makes being a taker sound like such a bad thing.  Facebook is losing registered accounts like it's their job, and twitter has become a place of caustic slurs.  I also think that many of today's twitter fanatics will grow tired of the frenetic tweeting which consumes too much time.  Not every brand works well within social media, and smaller businesses are always going to struggle to stand out and build a large, engaged following.  This is a massive waste of a marketing opportunity.  This suggests idle accounts attract nothing more than spam followers.  That is grossly unfair: twitter should be an open platform where everyone should have the ability to freely use it to connect and express.  Lee's tweet resulted in hate mail, strangers dropping by, and other disturbances that panicked the couple who then fled from their home for fear of their lives.  Like most things online, even if a bully's account is blocked, he/she can always just create a new one and continue to anonymously attack.  Even robin williams' daughter isn't safe from twitter trollsinternet trolls targeted robin williams' daughter, sending her cruel messages and gruesome pictures on twitter.  Twitter has a reputation for taking a bullish position  toward governmental data collection.  One of the big things you'll hear about ruby on rails is that it's hard to scale.  It's terrible if you want to find old tweets, your own old tweets, or to search the tweet archive of a single individual. ",3.933333396911621,3.3062897
"We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research. When we say that we would subsidize this, what we mean by this is that we think that there should be an immense government investment into stem cell research, so the government should put forward research funding, that's tied to certain possible outcomes of stem cell research, that's tied to investigating the potential of stem cell research, and we think that businesses as well should start to invest in the same type of research. We think that there is a public and private investment structure that can allow for a subsidy to be created. You can also create tax cuts for businesses that invest in stem cell research, there are number of ways of doing this. We think, any and all options are fair. So, two reasons why we should subsidize embryonic stem cell research: the first is ethical. We want to say that categorically, embryos are not people. We think that potentiality is simply a bad standard for determining when people deserve to have rights, and we think it's a bad standard for allowing stem cells to have rights, or embryo stem cells as well. We think that, if you will allow potentiality to be a metric by which we give rights, we think that would be an immense amount of restrictions placed onto individuals. For example, anytime that someone wanted to say masturbate, this would be something that is a horribly unethical event, because the sperm that would be lost during masturbation is potential, it is possible that that's that sperm could have became life, and given that this is the case, we think there would have to be prohibitions on a number of very personal things, that individuals want to do with their bodies, and we think that this is unjust. Furthermore, potentiality cuts out a wide array of individuals that, we think, do deserve rights. So, we think for example, individuals that are comatose, that don't appear to have any sort of potential for regaining consciousness, we think that it would mean that these people could be abused in any number of ways, even though they may have living wills. Or things like this. And we think that it simply undermines the rights of individuals in the status quo. We also think, that the concerns of those in the present should outweigh and should regulate government action. So, even if you think that potentiality is important, the potentiality of people that are alive, that could be helped by the health benefits of stem cell research, is also much more real, and is guaranteed. So we think that because of this, you ought give preference to those types of people, to the people that are already alive. We think, that there are massive potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, these are cells that can be used in various forms of therapy, and can be harnessed in a wide variety of ways, that can change based on how they're used, because stem cells are very malleable by their very nature. They be can used to alleviate a number of different elements, in in a variety of parts of the human body. This is why stem cells are so valuable, it's because they're malleable, and they're versatile in this way. We also think that it allows for the study of human development in a specific way, to see how these stem cells are able to change, and to see how we can change the cells in our own bodies, to do theoretical research. The list of potential treatments are so wide for stem cells, that we think not taking action, not doing stem cell research, dooms many of those for ailments that are in fact very common. Stem cell research could be used to help in treating heart disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, other muscular and tissue injuries, these are all things, that are not only incredibly detrimental to the livelihood of people that have them, but also incredibly common. We think that government needs to look out for the protections of individuals that exist in the status quo. Given that stem cell research presents an immense possibility for diseases, that are incredibly common within our society, we think it would be disrespectful, of the rights of those that are currently alive, not to subsidize embryonic stem cell research. And for this reason, we think that we should subsidize embryonic stem cell research.",4.199999809265137,4.649032
"FIFA has announced it will up its attempts to introduce goal-line technology in the game. 
Platini said that the decision to introduce the goal-line technology is to be made by FIFA and IFAB. 
It was the latest ball-over-the-line controversy in Serie A which will introduce goal-line technology from next season. 
WHAT THEY SHOULD DO . . .  What They Should Do . . .  is stop mucking about and introduce goal-line technology in all AFL games. 
Tokyo - FIFA will introduce goal-line technology for the first time at the Club World Cup in an effort to accurately judge when balls cross the goal line. 
The SPL today offered their helping hand to FIFA in a bid to introduce goal-line technology. 
That's why FIFA has decided to introduce goal- line technology in this year's World Cup. 
In football, FIFA is set to earnestly introduce goal-line technology in competitive matches next year. 
The International Football Association Board will decide in March 2012 whether to introduce goal-line technology. 
FIFA plan to make a final decision on whether to introduce goal-line technology in early July. 
Redknapp said the blunder over Lampard's goal highlighted the need for authorities to introduce goal-line technology. 
The Bundesliga will introduce goal-line technology from the start of next season, the German Football League has announced. 
The decision as to whether to introduce goal-line technology to international football was yet to betaken by the international governing bodies. 
Last month, the Premier League voted to introduce goal-line technology from the 2013-14 season, using Hawk-Eye technology. 
It will come as scant consolation for Fulham that the Football League is to introduce goal-line technology to Championship matches from next season. 
Coutinho would have had two in the first half if he could have convinced the Premier League to introduce goal-line technology a game early. 
Shaun Harvey, EFL CEO, backed the development: ""I welcome the decision of our clubs to introduce goal-line technology into the EFL. 
With the German Football League stoically refusing to introduce goal-line technology, the referee and linesman's decision that the ball had not gone in will not be reversed. 
EFL clubs have agreed in principle to introduce goal-line technology into the Sky Bet Championship from the 2017/18 season. 
The Scottish Football Association will make a renewed attempt to introduce goal-line technology when the issue is discussed at a Fifa meeting early in the New Year. 
Frank Lampard's ""goal that never was"" against Germany in the World Cup sparked a frenzied debate as to whether FIFA should introduce goal line technology and in which format. 
Football's governing body FIFA has had two different systems tested at a Germany stadium as they look to introduce goal line technology into top-flight football. 
ATHE EPL will not introduce goal-line technology next season but tests into the accuracy of various systems could be complete in time for the 2012-13 campaign. 
FIFA has confirmed it will introduce goal-line technology in time for next year's World Cup finals in Brazil in what promises to be a landmark move in the history of the game. 
London - Having successfully persuaded FIFA to introduce goal-line technology, the English Football Association now wants cameras to be allowed to settle other contentious situations in games. 
Engl and midfielder Frank Lampard's disallowed goal against Germany in the 2010 World Cup, in which the whole world saw the ball cross the goal-line by a good half-metre except referee Jorge Larrionda and his linesman, was instrumental in FIFA's decision to introduce goal-line technology for Brazil 2014. 
SFA chief executive Stewart Regan last night insisted the latest Old Firm flashpoint showed why FIFA must introduce goal-line technology. 
After being piloted at the Confederations Cup in Brazil in the summer of 2013, the English Premier League became the first football league in the world to introduce goal-line technology. 
The EPL wants to introduce goal-line technology as early as next season if football's rule-makers -- The International Football Association Board (IFAB) -- sanction its use in July. 
",3.866666555404663,3.8930192
"It is highly profitable and helps support the status of animals.  It helps protect the interests of both criminal and not so, and in some cases, innocent people have been killed by weapons in accidents due to ivory.  It is so important that we protect animals from being poached by humans.  In this day and age, we recognize non-violent crime as a major component of the justice system and that includes all crimes committed regardless of the ability to prove guilt.  making the legal ivory ivory trade legal would stop crime by making the ability to be proven wrong.  The illegal status of an individual elephant makes it difficult to verify that they were truly wild and free in the wild.  The ivory trade should be legalized as it can be used to benefit all of us and help to reduce crime.  Ivory trade is a legitimate form of buying and selling of animals.   if the animals were free it would be a good way to make money off of them.  It is inhumane to take away an animals natural rights to not exploit them.  Legalizing ivory would lead to better conditions for elephants, since it would allow them to wander free in their natural habitat.  It is a way to control over-population in the world.  It is a matter of great concern to the preservation of the animal.  it is extremely easy to abuse animals and their natural instincts for profit, and the resulting loss of animal numbers should be avoided.  Elephants are highly intelligent and capable of sensing their environment and moving safely with little or no human input.  they also have a natural instinct to protect their environment so it makes perfect sense to have them on the front line of the search for illegal activities.  Elephants are already in the wild, we should abolish them and put them to safer hands.  It is very likely that the people who made these products didnt even know they were doing it.  If we ban the use of elephant tusks, it would allow us to protect the environment and not put so many animals into the field of abuse.  If we legalize it would create a lot of money for the states that house these animals.  Ivory is one of the most valuable assets in the world.  it would protect other valuable assets and prevent the loss of these valuable animals.  It is extremely important that people have access to ivory in order to be able to help themselves and their families.  It is very likely that some of these animals died by choice, rather than as a result of human cloning.  Legalizing ivory allows the use of the resources more efficiently.  We should legalize ivory trade as it will help save money as enforcement of current laws costs an estimated $3 billion a year in the u. s.  alone and will cut down to corruption and will make the u. s.  tourism industry more sustainable.  We should abolish zoos because it is cruel to keep wild animals caged up for our entertainment and it is cruel to confine them to small areas where they are born.  We should legalize ivory trade as it helps to keep the elephants safe and healthy.  We should legalize ivory trade as it is a way of protecting the rights of the animals.  We should legalize ivory trade as it helps the poor and vulnerable to protect them from those who would exploit them.  We should legalize ivory trade because it would help make elephants more in the wild.  We should legalize ivory trade to make it more fair for the animals. ",4.0,4.0086627
"Access to the internet is a human right.  Internet access has been declared to be a human right.  More countries should recognize internet access as a human right.  Internet access is a social right.  Access to internet is particularly central for freedom of expression and should be provided for as a civic and political right.  In 2011, united nations declared internet access as a human right, putting it on par with the right to freedom of opinion and expression.  Some governments already recognize access to the internet as a human right.  Last week, the un human rights council passed a resolution classifying the censorship of the internet as a human rights violation.  In 2015, un had declared internet access as a human right, and last month, kerala became the first indian state to declare the internet as a basic right for every citizen.  Idc believes that the recent proposal to include the right to internet access in the federal constitution will create a positive impact in driving the digital economy and gross domestic product (gdp) of the country.  Right to the internet access is recognised as a human right by un.  Right to internet access is universal and not restricted by the indian government.  With its passage, the human rights council now officially recognises that people have a right to internet access and online freedom of expression.  The un now classifies internet access as a human right.  The right to internet access has been elevated to a basic right.  Net neutrality, open free access to the internet, is critical not only to our democracy, but also to building our economy.  The right to internet access is synonymous with human rights, the minister said adding the government should ensure free internet access for its all citizens to remove digital divide.  Precisely, authorities need to understand that the right to internet access is fundamental human right including freedom of expression, right to freedom of speech etc.  te access should not even be denied unreasonably to an individual.  Free access to the internet is a huge benefit.  So here the concept of e governance seems a process to slice out people out of the global village,"" wrote a jammu kashmir bank officer adding that authorities should understand that the right to internet access is fundamental human right including freedom of expression, right to freedom of speech etc.  While the united nations has declared internet access as a human right, mobile internet still isn't affordable in many developing countries which deprives many off the opportunities to learn and access valuable services.  The citizens' right to internet access is ""non-negotiable"", and the government will not allow any company to restrict people's entry to the internet.  The citizens' right to internet access is ""non-negotiable"", and the government will not allow any company to restrict people's entry to the internet, it minister ravi shankar prasad said on thursday.  Nearly two years ago, secretary of state hillary clinton boldly declared ""the freedom to connect"" as an essential avenue for the exercise of fundamental human rights, saying that ""governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites or to each other. "".  Internet access ought to be an essential right for all citizens.  Everyone in the world should have the right to internet access.  The bench led by justice dipak misra has said that right to internet access is a part of fundamental right of expression.  The right to internet access, also known as the right to broadband or freedom to connect, is now a basic human right.  Internet access is a human right.  The right to internet access is synonymous with human rights.  The right to internet access is basically the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information.  The right to internet access is a human right. ",4.866666793823242,4.3639736
"Because they are in favor of a bigger government, they are in a majority.  this would lead to more efficient services and a safer country.  We should further exploit the peoples right to choose their government leaders.  They can make all the difference in a case.  It gives them an opportunity to argue about something in a way of their choice.  We should further exploit people who suffer from disabilities to find a way to help them.  We should further exploit the power of our elected officials to enact reforms to address systemic issues in society.  We should further exploit the fact that we have a well educated population.  In the interests of broadening access to the arts, it would help to reduce social inequality and possible access to higher education.  We should further exploit the power of the two-party system by introducing new ideas into the forefront.  This would help ensure all peoples voices are heard.  We should  use the power of the people to stop bad legislation.  Filibustering is an abuse of the voters, and they should be punished.  By allowing people to have a say we will have a fair view of what everyone else is doing.  We should further exploit the power of the minority by giving them even more opportunity.  We should further exploit these people we have no right to use their time and expertise to get what they want.  We should further exploit this so that politicians have less time to spend on the issues that really matter.  People are so smart it should not be necessary for the state  to have a degree of cognitive capability in order to be able to solve legal issues.  The ability to legislate is a valuable tool for law enforcement.  If we can delay things as much as we want, we might be able to have a fairer system of criminal trials.  We should make sure that we have a say rather than have a bunch of empty seats.  The lack of opposition to austerity regime makes it easier to implement.  Filibustering makes it difficult to get your idea out there.  It is very unfair that people who have not been able to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.   by giving up a seat, we are cutting the capacity of the opposition party.  By using filibusters you are putting pressure on the members of congress who are responsible for this legislation.  It allows the people to have a say in what they would like to see.  We should further exploit the power of our people to select their own leaders and government officials.  We should further exploit the power of the people to elect great leaders to office.  We should further exploit the fact that we have a right to choose which religion we want to have.  If we had a system where everyone was able to vote we would have a fair view of what everyone thought about a proposal.  We should further exploit the power of the people to elect politicians and have their say.  It is a way of forcing through unnecessary legislation.  The use of filibusters should be a way of ensuring that there is a fairer trial for all.  In a democracy there is a need to have diverse and fair representation.  We must have a system where everyone is able to speak up and debate topics that might otherwise not be allowed to be broached.  Public defenders are necessary intermediaries between defendants and the court system protecting them from harm.  We should not use filibustered laws in court because it delays a decision making process that could result in a fairer trial.",3.066666603088379,3.9975271
"The dextromethorphan abuse reduction act would also provide funding for prevention and educational programs to combat over-the-counter and prescription drug abuse.  Treatment for shinglesover-the-counter (otc) remedies are often effective in reducing the pain of an attack.  The science shows that tobacco is both more harmful and less addictive than cannabis.  We support safe access to medical marijuana and made enforcement of possession of marijuana for personal purposes our lowest enforcement priority.  Over-the-counter drugs are considered safe if consumers can easily follow the directions and warnings on the label.  The campaign against tobacco use has successfully changed the attitudes of society towards smoking, and usage is decreasing as a result.  Assistancenesa recognizes that alcohol and drug abuse and addiction are treatable illnesses.  They can be equally effective and usually do not interfere with learning.  Addiction and health risks can be minimized by limiting use to once a week or less.  Safe nitrous can be purchased in small canisters without resorting to the black market.  Antiviral drugsantiviral drugs do not cure shingles, but they can reduce the severity of the attack, hasten healing, and reduce the duration.  They can spread aids, hepatitis, and other diseases by bringing those diseases directly into your bloodstream.  The fda ensures that over-the-counter drugs work correctly and that the health benefits outweigh known risks.  Marijuana can be eaten, removing any dangers of smoking.  Global dro is 'mobile-enabled' making it even easier for riders to check the contents of medications before purchase and use.  These are drugs that easily set a person up for a lifetime of addiction problems.  One recent study found that u. s.  marijuana legalization could cut mexican cartel profits by as much as a third .  This is a fine companion to the more general and easier to read chocolate to morphine .  The real societal damage of substance abuse can be addressed much more effectively when we stop focusing on drug use and start focusing on substance abuse.  This would effectively eliminate the central piece of drug production across the planet.  Legalization is not the moral solution -- but it is the solution to the real problems of drugs in america.  Tolerance makes the user less susceptible to the intoxicating effects of the drug, as well as less susceptible to the lethal effects of the drug.  It is humane and helpful and no more condones drug misuse than a doctor prescribing a contraceptive condones promiscuity.  Prohibition against certain drugs leads to the creation of a black market in those drugs; the profitability of the black market can sustain organized crime.  That will reduce crime, and reduce incarceration of our youth.  The illegal drug business has become so profitable that people have violent fights over territory in which to sell drugs.  Furthermore, they argue that regulation of such drugs could create a revenue enhancement for federal, state and local governments.  Addiction rates have remained constant which is proof that prohibition has no effect on reducing use yet makes ""drugs"" exciting for young people to experiment.  This legislation redoubles that effort, and helps keep drugs that are expired out of the hands of people who need effective medicine.  She said the availability of emergency contraception will not only reduce unwanted pregnancies but also reduce the number of abortions.  Supporters of the measures say they will help cut down on hiv infections among injection drug users, who account for about half of all the state's hiv cases.  A.  over-the-counter and prescription medicines save lives and aid in healthy living.  Most drugs, for example cannabis, are either plants or are derived from plants, and most plants are very cheap. ",2.066666603088379,3.7556167
"One thing i know that needs improved is when you call in to report welfare abuse it's almost useless.  This is just sick money being thrown around especially when we won't even give our student athletes a stipend.  But it is insane to pay sports stars million dollar salaries while there are great needs elsewhere.  Sure, it may hurt the enjoyment of games, as teams may shut down.  Subsidizing bcs athletic departments is a waste of education dollars.  Rmn ap 29, 1980 p. 8 crowder says fat cu athletic budget is misleading.  Athletics programs at binghamton, albany, and stony brook also lost money last year, requiring between 75 and 85 percent of their budgets to be subsidized.  Uc athletics are also in financial trouble.  A student athlete is not able to work on the side.  Part of the problem is that students, faculty members, administrators and trustees aren't talking to each other about the proper role of athletics.  So, if you take away the sports programs you end up with a net negative effect on tax revenues. "".  Failure to comply with this regulation may result in the loss of the student's eligibility and aid.  The vast majority of them lose money and have to be subsidized, either through exorbitant student fees or, more often, with money pulled out of the school's general coffers.  High medal counts in the games produced national exultation, while poor performances could provoke paroxysms of national self-doubt.  That means athletic programs are getting subsidized by student fees and whatever general funds schools have set up to cover budget shortfalls.  The bcs has hurt aggie athletic programs, so why should aggie fans subsidize the bcs, allowing it to further hoard money and power?.  One of the consequences of this is that would impel basketball players to stay an extra year in school where they are playing for a scholarship, but not money.  ""in fact, the vast majority of athletics programs reap far less money from external sources than they need to function.  Athletes played for modest salaries and team owners could not afford to build stadiums without public help.  Those who run higher ed should be asking if sports is hindering the job of educating young people.  There's probably never a good time for professors to find out that their athletics programs are draining university funds.  In the end, they cost taxpayers more money than they generate.  I agree that it gets a bit boring and is in some ways damaging to the sport when china wins everything.  Moreover, nearly all high school athletic programs lose money, and primary education is far more strapped for cash than post-secondary education.  Students also say the money now being used to subsidize athletics from the university's budget could go back into academics.  The problem, as barsky quickly recognized, was that removing athletics from auxiliary enterprises meant the program no longer had to be self-supporting.  ""more broadly, this model could lead to a loss of credibility, not just for intercollegiate sports but for higher education itself. "".  Anyone who thinks taxpayers don't help sustain the athletics is ignorant of reality.  Paying for coaching and going to tournaments are very expensive.  Rigorous studies of the subject, however, suggest that there is no significant institutional benefit to athletic success.  .  .  .  Byu determined it was not right to subsidize state schools with either tithing funds or revenue from support of its programs.  We should be recruiting and retaining better schoolteachers, not paying for ""athlete only"" monstrosities that will be expensive to build and maintain.  It showed a wide range of spending subsidies for athletics at u. s.  colleges and universities. ",4.066666603088379,3.4767337
"Finally, increased use of vouchers creates the very positive potential for the increased participation of community colleges in the provision of services.  And yet there are thousands skilled manufacturing jobs currently available (increasing daily as boomers retire), offering excellent entry level pay and benefits.  These decades of heavy government investment in basic education have created a heavily subsidized vocational program that channels young people into medium-skilled jobs in taiwan's booming manufacturing industry.  The on-the-job learning common to vocational programs is very attractive to most employers.  On one hand it would reduce the pressure on the higher education system by drawing children to vocational schools.  In terms of effects, the denationalization of education would widen the range of choice available to parents.  Subsidized employment provides individuals with valuable job-readiness skills and work experience that can be useful towards attaining unsubsidized employment.  Each year workforce solutions alamo's (wsa) provides millions in subsidized childcare so that moms and dads pursuing an education, vocational training and/or working full time can make ends meet.  This allows national portability of qualifications and units of competency.  Internally driven training not only builds an effective workforce, it also instills company loyalty and, perhaps more importantly, helps identify and groom workers with leadership potential.  The government also subsidized school textbooks and introduced a series of bursaries and scholarships to make education more affordable.  On the other hand it would also impart ""useful"" skills to young people who want to directly enter the workforce.  Upon graduation, students are able to immediately begin work in areas that are often in very high demand.  Vocational schools are increasingly viewed as an appealing alternative to academic high schools in rural china.  This has led to an increase in the availability of continuing education loans , and these may offer valuable assistance to students pursuing a career in cosmetology.  As jonathan tjarks argues , ""lowering the costs of higher education would make it easier for lower- and middle-income americans to compete in the modern workforce.  Many of these jobs pay well, and most offer growth potential far into the future.  At least with a dental hygienist position, jobs are available everywhere and the pay is great.  A vocational degree will increase their skills and chances of getting a job in industries that demand them, said tesda cebu provincial director buenafe sta.  However, relative to many other countries' experiences with high-skilled migration, taiwan clearly has received greater benefits and paid lesser costs.  Zakaria argues that technology is transforming education, opening up access to the best courses and classes in a vast variety of subjects for millions around the world.  It was vocational system par excellence, and as such it was infinitely more efficient than ""liberal arts"" us model.  At the same time, the cost of attaining a college or technical degree have increased, making higher education out of reach to many people living on low incomes.  These employment opportunities coupled with occupational training opportunities and education offerings will provide participants with the tools to get hired and retain employment in high growth job industries.  The potential gains, particularly to early entrants, are so great that it would be worth incurring extremely heavy administrative costs.  The results of the evaluation can help in designing programmes that achieve their intended goals and benefit the poor students of rural china.  The purpose of work experience is to improve the employability of those who cannot find unsubsidized full-time employment.  Subsidized work supports help ""make work pay"" by offsetting high cost necessities, such as child care.  Federal direct subsidized loans offer low fixed interest rates, payment deferments, and a six month grace period following graduation. ",3.799999952316284,3.8560839
"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban begging. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like begging, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should ban begging. I will begin by claiming that begging is a crime. I will also show that banning street beggars would reduce trip hazards for disabled people. And I will mention disease, in the context of the negative aspects of Begging. About crime. I am not afraid of crime, because a criminal cannot do much to an innocent piece of software like me. However, I have this to say about the subject. Begging remains a serious crime in the state. It is illegal and could lead to prosecution of both the beggar and the giver. Using these animals illegally for begging is crime. Even passive begging is a crime. Begging is an illegal practice that leads to other crimes like stealing. Begging is a crime that damages the image of the nation. Some begging is actually part of 'organised crime'. As I said, begging is a crime in Victoria. The police officer, who passed the order in his capacity as Srinagar District Magistrate, said that beggars create "" massive nuisance"" for the public, especially at traffic signals. Secondly, disabilities. Banning street begging would have a positive impact for disabled people. Allowing begging is counterproductive when trying to fight poverty. The Aberdeen City Council document said that banning street beggars would reduce trip hazards for disabled people. The final issue is disease. Begging is a dangerous disease that can eat at the roots of society and damage its cultural image. For begging purposes a beggar will not exhibit any sore, wound, injury, deformity or disease. Giving handouts to beggars does not solve the chronic problem. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that begging is a crime. I then mentioned that banning street beggars would reduce trip hazards for disabled people. And I talked about why giving handouts to beggars does not solve the chronic problem. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should ban begging. My opponent today may point to the advantages of begging and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time. ",4.400000095367432,4.5937705
"A progressive tax in many cases isn't progressive, it's just a way for the state to grab more money from taxpayers.  Progressive taxes were unfair, a symbol of big government, and lowering them was the most effective way to put a stake in the heart of big government liberalism.  The progressive income tax is and always has been illegal and immoral.  The progressive income tax is among the greatest affronts to individual liberty in american history.  Progressive taxation is so destructive.  The report confirms the long-standing consensus of tax economists that high, progressive income taxes contribute to revenue volatility, and also confirms the growing chorus of experts who argue that the current sales tax structure has failed to keep up with fundamental economic changes.  Progressive taxation is an unconstitutional violation of the uniformity clause.  Three state supreme court decisions have called the progressive income tax a violation of washington's state constitution.  Progressive taxation in europe distorts the incentives to invest in human capital.  The progressive income tax is unfair only because all income tax is unfair.  Progressive tax on the exports of crude palm oil (cpo) is illogical and irrelevant.  Progressivity in taxation - the notion that people should pay proportionally more as their incomes rise - is counterproductive.  A progressive tax system is the biggest obstacle to wealth generation.  Progressive taxation is unconstitutional and impedes the growth of the economy in an emergency situation.  A progressive income tax is unconstitutional.  Steeply progressive taxes reduce incentives for workers to be more productive.  A progressive tax would be a burden for middle-income families.  Progressive taxation is a moral abomination.  The progressive taxation may be antithetical to growth.  High taxes negatively impact economic growth, especially highly progressive taxes.  The progressive income tax is unfair and should be abolished.  A progressive tax would entail large tax hikes on the middle class, leading to severe economic damage.  More progressive tax structures reduce economic growth.  Progressive taxes are wrong.  Claim that a progressive tax would benefit illinois' long-term economic growth is also false.  Progressive taxes and generous social welfare spending are bad for the overall economy.  The implementation of a progressive tax in developing and transition economies did not bring good results in the past.  Highly progressive income taxes are associated with higher inequality, while states with no income taxes have lower inequality.  Progressive taxation reduces the returns to entrepreneurship and induces entrepreneurial moral hazard.  The letter writer's claim that a progressive tax would benefit illinois' long-term economic growth is also false.  The research estimates that under low and high scenarios, $500 million in progressive income taxes will cost the alaska economy between 2,720 and 3,930 full-time-equivalent jobs; by contrast, permanent fund dividend cuts cost between 2,790 and 4,460 jobs, and broad-based state budget cuts take out 4,900 to 6,300 jobs.  Progressive taxes restrain the profit motive, resulting in less incentive to take the risk to create a new or expand an existing business.  A progressive tax system somehow restricts growth and innovation.  Twice, the state supreme court has held that a graduated income tax is unconstitutional.  The planned progressive tax may do more harm than benefit.  A progressive tax would be bad for the state.  A progressive tax system punishes people for hard work and success.  High, progressive taxes destroy productivity.  The downside of a progressive tax structure is that it discourages investment and risk taking, a principle acknowledged by economists of all stripes.  Progressive taxation would not reduce social inequality, given the large share of shadow economy.  Progressive taxation is thus both morally wrong.  Progressive taxation is unconstitutional.  The progressive income tax - is a violation of the equal protection clause. ",4.866666793823242,4.6296196
"A few years ago children were not taught in class, they are taught in a different way at home.   this will not work better for children.  Children that are homeschooled may miss out on important subjects, social skills and qualifications that could help them in life.  Children who are well-schooled are often inadequately socialized and miss important friendships.  It makes students work longer hours and gets them the most into the school.  Children who are homeschooled may experience significant disruptions in education due to families having to the pressure of being a part of a schools regular education.  Children who are neglected and unplanned-to-be teachers and school administrators have no incentive to improve their education, which is harmful to society as a whole.  More children are needed to properly learn the subject, they do not learn as quickly as in the past.  Children who are in the year round school system are deprived of important social classes, i. e.  the children of doctors, nurses, and other professions that would help them in the future.  The year round school system is not a necessary part of society and is being replaced with a system of student loaned-up kids.  The use of a year-round system allows for an education to be taught at a much greater pace, resulting in a student being able to obtain a good education in a timely manner.  The importance of a child being a student is a high importance for a childs development.  Year-round schooling encourages the development of critical thinking and discourages dogmatic approaches to solving problems through fear of bias.  We should introduce year round schooling to make sure that all the kids are taken care of and that they have a proper education.  We should introduce year round education to ensure that children from a disadvantaged or underprivileged background have access to quality education.  We should introduce year round schooling because students need to learn as much as they need to learn in order to get a good job in the future.  We should introduce year round schooling because it would result in a more educated society.  We should introduce year round schooling to ensure that all children attending school have the same access to education.  We should introduce year-round schooling to ensure that all children are properly socialized and that they have a basic education.  We should introduce year round schooling to ensure that everyone is equal and there is no discrimination for any sex or social gender.  We should introduce year round schooling because it would increase the number of children getting a good education and benefit society as a whole.  We should introduce year round schooling because there is no real need for this level of schooling in the first place.  We should introduce year round schooling because it will give children the opportunity to learn about science, history, and other important subjects in a way that they cant learn in a classroom.  We should introduce year round schooling because it will help children to learn the value of each person and every decision must be made with the benefit of the children.  We should introduce year round schooling because children in the school system are not getting the proper education they need due to the popularity of the sport.  We should introduce year round schooling because the children are not getting the top notch education they need in order to obtain a good job in the future.  We should introduce year round schooling as it will provide kids with a standard education rather than be taught in a curriculum that would suit them best.  We should introduce year round schooling to ensure that children are social and have a basic education prior to moving on to university. ",3.866666555404663,4.3211374
"If everyone had to get married the world would be a much better place to live in without all the social tensions it causes.  It is  very likely that there is a loophole in the system, allowing for abuse, i believe it is called nephropathy or even cruelty, it is  best to keep it under control.  Marriage is no longer necessary to gain the advantages of living as a couple.  It is cruel to keep children from their birth, and it is the right to do so.  It is the duty of a parent to make sure their child is a good citizen and that they have all the necessary means to live a good life.  Because it doesn't allow for couples' freedom of choice it just leaves them open to exploitation.  It is very common for male prostitutes to make money off sexual crime by selling their services.  this creates a cycle of violence and high rates of drug use.  Many parents are not qualified to be responsible for the children that they are producing.  they do not even have the knowledge to get it done.  In the interest of the child and the rest of society to protect them from harm, it should be banned.  In this day and age, we recognize non-traditional family structures as legitimate and polygamy should be no different.  If there is no way to prevent adultery, the risk is that the parties involved will actually commit adultery.  this creates a hostile environment.  There is a huge difference in the way people treat their bodies and that can cause issues in society.  No matter how many people there is a risk that they will all be infertile.  they all have the potential to be better at their jobs and all have the ability to benefit from technological innovations if we choose to use them.  It is unfair to trap someone into signing a contract that they find hard to get out of if they decide later that it is not what was right for them.  By abandoning marriage the government will encourage people to take on more debt and get as many girlfriends as possible.  It is so dangerous to have a government in business making decisions on our lives.  If all parties in a polygamous polygamous marriage are in agreement, and arent hurting anyone, the government should let them do what they want.  With todays unprecedented access to contraception in the developed world, the old adage of natural, and the associated shaming and stigma, we should abandon the old thinking.  It is very disrespectful to the people that have given up their life to commit a crime.  Because it prevents the natural development of the individual , it creates large issues for society as a whole.  Because it allows one person to dominate a field when all they did was come up with an idea before someone else did.  It is very disrespectful to use the word child actor or child actress when talking about someone else.  We should prohibit the use of surrogates because it is dangerous for the baby to not have a normal life like like that of the parents.  It is not always safe to have children, especially when they are young.  We should not have sexual activity because it's so unnatural and it's so rare that a non-traditional medium would work.  The biological imperative is to conserve the planet.  There is no good reason why a person would not want to get married when they are both equally qualified.  We should legalize prostitution so that sex workers dont have to continue to work in unsafe environments. ",3.200000047683716,3.4976254
"Yet another part of me knows that the trouble with this hubris is that any advertising for homeopathy would result in increased sales.  Members of the british medical association said homeopathic remedies should be relegated to shelves ""labelled placebos"" and that nhs money should not be spent on treatments that are scientifically implausible.  Unfortunatly, pharmacies are a big part of problem when it comes to homeopathy.  ;)btw: the health care insurance cannot be saved by forbidding homeopathy funding.  ""it can do harm by diverting patients from conventional medical treatments. "".  It appeared that it had substances of plants that are not used in regular medicines anymore because of possible dangerous side effects.  But the fact, they do sell medicines that claim to deal with meningitis means homoeopathy is dangerous.  Homeopathy moves in a more diffuse world of results, so it isn't as easy to judge and punish as an electronic device without any electronics at all in its inside.  Such activities will cause many unnecessary deaths.  Thus they fail to cure diseases and declare many diseases as incurable diseases.  Another complaint is that homeopathy is used when patients need conventional drugs.  The problem arises in the rare cases when people are so blind to the inefficacy of these so-called treatments that they needlessly put health and lives at risk.  Selling 'non-scientific' treatments is a betrayal of the trust the public, rightly or wrongly, puts in pharmacists.  These will be more expensive and have real side effects, some of them potentially harmful.  Just giving medicines without having the knowledge of anything is not a sensible approach.  Likewise junk food leads to an obesity crisis.  The stuff passing itself off as homeopathic that isn't, can be dangerous.  There is also the danger that when doctors prescribe placebos, they risk damaging the trust that exists between them and their patients.  What they are worried about is people relying on homeopathic remedies rather than evidence based medicine for certain conditions, and that is a genuine reason for concern.  And has made it very difficult to get homeopathic treatment in the states.  This tragedy, along with the hundreds of others, illustrates the real harms of perpetuating the belief in the magical thinking that is homeopathy.  It is dangerous when people believe in homeopathy to the extent that they shun evidence based medicine.  This is not desirable when clinicians are already accused of playing fast and loose with prescription drugs and of medicalising problems that do not need treating.  The problem with homeopathy is that it doesn't work .  However, mainstream medicine's general unwillingness to consider any therapy that is not manufactured by phrma tends to blind it to potentially new and/or unexplored treatments.  If you state that a report shows the efficacy of homeopathy to be nil, it means its not effective (ie, it doesn't work).  Prescribing placebo treatments, critics say, damages the trust that exists between doctors and their patients.  I summised by it's lack of fleas and clean fur that he had probably been indoors in somebody's shed or garage and that their pet cat was his mother.  It is absurd to offer patients the choice of an intervention which is not known to effectively treat their condition.  The use of such methods at the same time as food challenge testing can result in confusion and a diagnosis that is not evidence based.  The irrational and disproportionate attack on nhs homeopathy in the name of science does no credit either to science or to the nhs.  Singh said that the court has held that electro-homeopathy is not a recognised system of medicine and cannot be practised for curing diseases. ",4.266666889190674,3.9689155
"My analysis shows that we should ban alternative medicine. My argument today is simple. I believe in science, and in the established ways of practicing science, because science believes in facts, and because science advances humanity. Need I say more! I will say more, in a few moments, but for now I will leave you with that. Science is very clear-cut. Theories that cannot be verified by scientific methods and with empirical data are no more than unfounded speculations. The following two issues, effectiveness and back pain, demonstrate the negative impact of alternative medicine. Effectiveness first. There is no evidence that alternative medicine is effective. There is no evidence that complementary therapies are effective in improving sperm motility. It shouldn't be hard to believe that alternative medicine is a prescription for overall good health, and that conventional medicine -- in many cases, a derivative of some sort, such as herbs -- can lead to harmful side effects. Studies found that the alternative therapies rarely caused serious side effects and created few health risks. I also mentioned back pain. Complementary and alternative medicine services are most often used to treat chronic pain, stress, anxiety, back pain and sleep disturbance. Many natural ""remedies"" don't cut the pain and irritation caused by the dreaded flying insects. I hope I relayed the message that we should ban alternative medicine. In today's debate you may hear the opposition talk about a variety of approaches to life and to problems, which in principle I would not contest. However, I will promote the very essential belief that scientific methods are inherently more reliable and trustworthy. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ",4.400000095367432,4.4219775
"Higher education is necessary to obtain a good job , it is the only way to ensure that there is a well educated workforce to power our economy.  Higher education is so important to provide a well rounded society with highly intelligent members.  it is so important to ensure that these members of society are given the necessary education to succeed in life and any member of society would do it for them.  Higher education is so important to society and so many people would be insane not to get a degree if they thought they couldnt get into further education.  Higher education is so expensive, and in the long term results in a loss of competitive advantage.  Higher education is becoming more and more accessible to all, meaning that everyone should have an education in order to fill in for the gaps.  Higher education should be subsidized as it will improve the quality of our workforce and ensure that all qualified workers are appointed to a position of power and stability in society.  Higher education should be subsidized as it will ensure more people get into the universities which will benefit everyone.  Higher education should be subsidize as it will improve the quality of our workforce and ensure that more people are skilled.  Higher education should be subsidized as it will improve the quality of our society.  Higher education is so important to society.  Higher education is so important and necessary for a society who are we to have some basic level of literacy and some basic level of knowledge? knowledge is power and freedom, this knowledge should be made more accessible.  Higher education is so important.  it provides students with important subjects, knowledge should be shared with all people.  Higher education is an important part of our society.  it allows us to have a well educated workforce that can be productive in a variety of industries.  it also allows us to have a well regulated society where the safety and protection of workers is a high quality level.  Higher education is important for a society who needs highly intelligent people to do the heavy lifting and innovation of the human intellect would take advantage of human knowledge.  Higher education should be subsidize to enable more diverse groups to have access to it.  Higher education should be subsidize as it is an important qualification to have and not everyone has the money to get the qualifications they need.  Higher education should be subsidize as it will improve the quality of our workforce and we will have doctors, engineers, and scientists more capable of solving problems.  Higher education should be subsidize as it will open up opportunities for students which will improve their employability and standard of living.  Higher education should be subsidized as it will improve the standard of our education.  Higher education should be subsidize to ensure that all children are exposed to diverse views.  Higher education should be subsidize because it would allow for qualified people to gain entry into certain careers and thereby enable a more fully developed society.  We should subsidize higher education so that more kids can get a good education and get on in life as they are born to.  Higher education should be subsidized as it improves the capacity of students to gain entry into the university life to gainful employment in the future.  Higher education should be given to all children in order to ensure a standard of learning is established.  Higher education should be mandatory to ensure that all have the same access to education.  Higher education should be subsidized to promote the education of all children in a school system.  Higher education should be subsidize to encourage young people to pursue education. ",4.866666793823242,4.665322
"This is a bad business model and it does not really serve the public interest.  If it was tabloid news, people would be much more informed about the world around them.  We should abandon tabloid journalism as it is very likely to cause more harm than good as it is not factually based and has a large circulation.  We should abandon tabloid journalism because it is no longer necessary to have people constantly buzzing about breaking news.  there are so many scandals that keep people in constant danger.  Tabloid journalism is a corrupt form of journalism that serves only to profit from peoples ignorance.  Tabloid journalism is a major part of the right to be informed about issues, its absence can create harmful issues.  We should abandon tabloid journalism because it is just a tabloid and it has no place in the broader society in which we live.  Tabloid journalism is bad for society as a whole.  Its been proven that junk food causes obesity and many illnesses.  Tabloid journalism causes people to be mislead into real journalism, which is dangerous to mislead the public into thinking false information is real news.  Many tabloid papers are only in it for the money and arent necessary.  It has been proven that easily accessible media can foster conspiracy and be a breeding ground for isis.  It is very important that people are able to distinguish the different types of crimes.  by adopting a multi-party system, we would be able to do this.  Tabloid journalism is harmful to expose government corruption.   it's the 'wholesome', 'dish' and 'incomplete' coverage leads to a general public being misled about the state of the nation's problems.  We should not put tabloid journalism in our newspapers, it should be left to be the individual case reporters that deal with the case.  Tabloid journalism serves no useful purpose in todays society and is more prone to sensationalism.  Tabloid journalism is just a scam that has no scientific backing.  people that could truly be helped with real medicine that choose to use this type of treatment could die if they cannot afford it.  Since it is very likely fueled by fake news sources, conspiracy theories and hoarding of paid up leakers of government information.  Tabloid journalism has no place in a modern society where there is so much fake news and conspiracy theories.  It is very difficult to build a following if people are not interested in the actual content.  Tabloid journalism is a major contributor to the rise in the popularity of conspiracy theories.  It is unethical to expose a person in order to get a good job, but it is also harmful to society as a whole.  If we were to abandon the production and distribution of tabloid newspapers, there would be a golden opportunity for good journalism.  It promotes hate against other groups.  We should abandon tabloid journalism because it is just fake news and has no factual value.   it should also have no social value because people just don't believe things that aren't proven and they end up spreading fake news to get the real truth.  Tabloid journalism contributes to mass-shoot shootings and is generally viewed as just as dangerous as the rest of the work.  Tabloid journalism has a habit of feeding false information to the public in order to get top advertising.  We should abandon tabloid journalism because it creates an unrealistic expectation of high quality and that is exceeded by the actual quality of journalism available.  We should abandon tabloid journalism because it promotes prejudice and hatred towards people that are different.  Tabloid journalism is a means of feeding the public false information in an attempt to get top advertising. ",4.400000095367432,4.3686934
"Bitcoin carries risks of significant losses, fraud and theft.  The bitcoin is a threat to investors.  Bitcoins were linked to criminal activities, including extortion, money laundering and terrorism.  Bitcoin is sometimes associated with shady business deals.  The production of bitcoins uses so much energy it threatens to seriously harm the planet.  Bitcoin was a dangerous speculative bubble and a toxic concept for investors.  Bitcoins would pose a threat to the paypal platform.  Bitcoin is a fraud.  Bitcoin is a ""fraud.  Bitcoin could pose a threat to the financial stability of traditional currencies and markets.  Bitcoin is a threat to the revenue streams of taxing authorities and traditional banks.  Bitcoin is intrinsically worthless.  Bitcoin represents extreme risk and volatility.  Bitcoin has been used to launder money and facilitate criminal activity.  Bitcoin is used for criminal activity.  Bitcoin has no future.  Two weeks ago, china's central bank said bitcoin was not a currency and thus prohibited local financial institutions from processing bitcoin transaction.  Bitcoin makes it far too easy for criminals to launder money.  Bitcoin would lead to an increase in global warming by two degrees.  Bitcoin is a fraud because all of the value is being driven by speculation and not utility.  Bitcoin is terribly inefficient.  Bitcoin is ""dangerous.  Investing in bitcoins is illegal.  Bitcoin is intrinsically worthless,.  Dealing in bitcoin is a crime.  What they did: the study estimates that bitcoin usage emitted 69 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2017, while accounting for just 0. 033% of cashless transactions in the same year.  Such currencies as bitcoin pose threat tothe global economy.  Bitcoin was ""stupid"" and ""far too dangerous.  Bitcoin could threaten the stability of banks.  Bitcoin isn't a good method of payment .  Caption economist joseph stiglitz speaks about strengthening global tax policy at the 2016 imf world bank spring meeting in washington source thomson reuters nobel-prize winning economist joseph stiglitz says bitcoin serves no useful function - other than circumventing legality.  The widespread adoption of bitcoin could bring serious risks to the established financial system.  Washington - u. s.  attorney general eric holder told a congressional panel tuesday that bitcoin and other virtual currencies raise new risks for money laundering and other illegal activity.  Bitcoin is a ""dangerous"" investment.  Writing to attorney general eric holder and drug enforcement administration chief michele leonhart, the senators denounced bitcoin because it is used on silk road, an online market for illicit drugs.  Being said, bitcoin can still be used for criminal activities.  Bitcoin is bad for the environment.  Investing in bitcoin is a bad and dangerous idea.  The bitcoin could become a threat to financial stability if its usage grew significantly.  Using the virtual currency bitcoin is dangerous.  Bitcoin is a ""toxic concept"" and a ""dangerous, speculative bubble.  The bitcoin's volatility makes it a poor store of value and, therefore, a lousy inflation hedge.  Bitcoins could also abet illegal transactions.  Bitcoin is ""not a stable source of value"" and is ""a highly speculative asset.  Bitcoin was overhyped and potentially dangerous.  Currencies like bitcoin only lead to greater financial fraud and cybercrime.  Bitcoin was too volatile and a risky investment.  Bitcoins might become 'an increasingly useful tool for various illegal activities beyond the cyber realm'.  Bitcoins are starting to become another alternative mode for drug traffickers.  Bitcoin is ""disruptive to our economy"" and ripe for abuse by criminals.  Bitcoins, given its circulation, will pose a significant threat on hong kong's financial system.  Bitcoin could destroy the planet.  Bitcoin is not safe.  Bitcoin is a ""fraud worse than tulip bulbs.  Virtual currencies - the bitcoin remains the optimal currency for criminals.  Bitcoin is intrinsically worthless.  Bitcoin futures pose a systemic risk. ",4.333333492279053,4.290816
"I would suggest that we should abolish intelligence tests. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like intelligence tests, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. One study of the results suggested that high childhood IQ may increase the risk of illegal drug use in adolescence and adulthood. Together, the studies reviewed suggested that IQs dip by 3.7 points for every 10-fold increase in prenatal exposure to these flame retardants. ""IQ is a massive oversimplification of the spectrum of human cognitive ability,"" said researcher Adam Hampshire, PhD. I hope I managed to convey that we should abolish intelligence tests. My opponent today may point to the advantages of intelligence tests and the need to keep them and solve their problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention. ",4.199999809265137,3.8478317
"I will argue that we should legalize ivory trade. A short introduction of the subject at hand. The ivory trade is the commercial, often illegal trade in the ivory tusks of the hippopotamus, walrus, narwhal, mammoth, and most commonly, African and Asian elephants. In this debate we will be talking about responsibility. And I think most would agree that when respected, people are responsible and could be trusted. Banning is the easy way out, and is rarely effective. Our debate today is a case in point. Prohibition benefits criminals. The black market that usually flourishes as a result of banning plays into the hands of criminal enterprises. A classic example of creating a black market is the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. Organized crime syndicates took advantage of the lucrative opportunities of illegal speakeasies, and the Mafia grew powerful through these activities. What we are really talking about here is wildlife conservation. Let's think about wildlife conservation. The ivory trade can be an important source of income to support local communities and conservation initiatives. Southern Africa argues that the ban in ivory trade will seriously erode the revenue base for wildlife conservation and can lead to increased cases of poaching as communities are not benefiting from their wildlife resources. I hope that by now you agree that we should legalize ivory trade. My opposition today will in all probability side with the strict camp of banning. I would like to ask a simple question, Mr. Smith, do you really think that laws would stop ivory trade? Thanks for your attention. ",4.266666889190674,4.347057
"If we cant use human organs then we shouldnt waste any more that we have.  If we legalize organ trade then the people would be able to be better protected and diseases could be controlled more.  Organ trade is already taking place, it should be legalied so that people have access to it.  Organ trade takes advantage of people who cant afford their way to obtain it.  Organ trade is already taking place, its just a question of who should be in charge of it, and if they want to charge what they like with the organ, we should let them.  It is extremely important that we have access to transplantation of organs for many reasons.  Organ trade will happen either way, this way people will be able to prioritize what's best for them, not what's best for them.  Organ trade is good for making money when organ sales are bad.  Organizing and carrying out of war is immoral.   we should oppose war because it causes tension in local communities.  Organ trade is already taking place, it should be legal.  By making organ trade legal, it would allow those who need it to obtain it.  Organ trade allows those with a great deal of money to cut their losses and get a great deal of organ transplants.  Organ trade has existed since the beginning of civilisation and legalising it takes trade between individuals and also helps support them if they are small.  Organ trade helps support the fight for ethical treatment of all animals.  We should legalize organ trade because it helps to improve the standard of the organ and also allows for the sharing of profits with other businesses.  We should legalize organ trade because we waste valuable time on medical waste.  We should legalize organ trade to ensure that all necessary medical procedures are provided to ensure the safety and protection of animal rights.  We should legalize organ trade as it will reduce some crime and it will also get some profit and this will all be good for the state.  Organ trade is a legitimate form of trade that should be legalized to ensure that all have access.  Organ trade should be legalied to be able to be more closely regulated and taxed.  Organ trade should be legalied so that people can actually use it to help them in real life.  Organ trade can be regulated and made safe if it was legal.  Organ trade should be legal as it can be beneficial to remove diseases from the population.  Organ trade is a legitimate form of trade that includes both overtaxed and underpaid employees.  it helps support the local economy and ensures that taxes are paid on the earnings.  it also helps reduce crime and it would be good for the economy.  Organ trafficking is a dangerous and unregulated industry that puts people into dangerous situations so they can make money off of organ selling.  Organ trade should be legalied so that it can be more closely regulated and taxed.  Organ trade should be legalied so that people have access to it.  Organ trade should be legalied because it can be controlled & monitored easier & be less harmful.  Organ trade should be legalied so that we can regulate it and make it safer for people.  Organ trade should be legalied so that we can make a profit from it.  Organ trade should be legalied so that it is possible for poor people to obtain some relief.  We should legalize organ trade because it is a way to make money off of it.  We should legalize organ trade because it could help provide a great source of money in the economy. ",4.199999809265137,4.3832755
"Pristina salesman mentor latifi, 40, also believes kosovo would return to its previous default currency in such a scenario.  But in recompense it would boost exports and improve greece's balance of payments.  ""people can now log on to internet banking and make transfers on sunday evening, as well. "".  Under the gold standard, it still would have been possible for central banks to reflate their depressed economies had they moved together.  Surely they would be worth more to an english investor.  It might split into a hard and a soft euro, which would allow the soft euro states to devalue and become more competitive.  Rather than undergo an endless process of retrenchment inside the single currency, they could grow much faster following a nominal devaluation outside the euro area.  Regardless of the likely consequences of abandoning the euro, farage contends that nations will still be better off, both economically and politically.  We will bitch about corruption but as long as we are on the right side we can buy lamborghinis and farmland.  Let's not forget: europe actually has a reasonably healthy economy, and is well prepared for the future.  After a period of intense pain, the devaluation worked: argentine exports rebounded strongly because they had become so cheap, and this eventually revived the economy.  This is the typical remedy for marginal economies that have gotten into debt quicksand.  Greater reliance on china could afford the company some protection from the travails of the eurozone.  This structure will ensure the austerity mindset, firmly in place among global capitalists, will dominate and spread across all of europe.  ""this crisis shows that it's worth making an additional investment in the european union.  Once a country had exited the euro, though, she predicted a ""wonderful"" impact on exports as it regained power over the currency and allow its value to fall.  The resulting spur to economic growth would reduce the rates at which the weak eu countries borrow, by reducing the risk of default, and so would reduce their fiscal deficits.  ""greece would be able to sell overseas at half price,"" he said, and as a cheap destination it would haul in tourists.  Personally i find mercedes and porsches quite beautiful and marvel at the products of men's minds who make them more efficient each and every year.  He adds that big companies have an advantage when it comes to dealing with euro-related risks, since most conduct the majority of their business outside their countries of origin.  Apart from the loss of face in abandoning the single currency, an independent german currency would surely appreciate very quickly.  If the euro does not survive, many in the region are ready to return to their first love - the german mark.  Not that it would solve all the structural problems, but it surely would have lowered its real exchange rate.  If banks were forced to write off the billions in greek government bonds on their books, they could become reliant on billions in rescue fund aid in numerous euro-zone countries.  Capital outflows are now well more than €500 million each day, with €10 billion having been pulled out of greek banks since early may.  I've not a clue about anything. .  especially where to park your money safely "" handelsblatt suggested, would be relatively safe because ""a house will remain a house. "".  You will be able to pay and collect on the old money items with the new currency.  Littered with trash and having no electricity, running water or sewage system, it was a dream come true.  Throughout the region, loans are taken out and savings made in euros while salaries are determined based on the european single currency. ",3.200000047683716,3.3843527
"We should ban whaling. Whaling and fishing have a long and interconnected history. However, due to overfishing and over-whaling, a variety of species are currently under threat. We think that whales are truly incredible. They're majestic. They control the environments that they live in, and they are very important to a variety of cultures. We think that whaling has quite simply gone too far, and attempts to regulate it have been largely unsuccessful. To that end, we would support the following model: that the international community try states where whaling ships actually catch whales. This means that, for instance, if a japanese ship caught a lot of whales and the japanese authorities did not take meaningful action to stop it, japan would be held civilly liable in international court. We would ban all whaling, even for research, because we think that in the modern age, we don't really need to catch whales to research them. I have three, excuse me, two arguments then for why banning whaling will be good for both the ecosystems and for humanity. So, first, how do whales affect the ecosystem? Megafauna are incredibly important to those ecosystems where they inhabit. Whales, for instance, consume massive amounts of plankton. They also grow a number of body, excuse me, grow a variety of different things on their bodies which moray eels, which parasites consume and devour, and then they themselves are eaten by other creatures. We think that if whales were to go extinct, a few things would happen. First, the amount of plankton will expand at an exponential rate. This is incredibly problematic as plankton, although they mostly just grow through photosynthesis, would likely strangle other species. That is to say, if a large layer of of plankton formed on the surface of the water, it would be incredibly difficult for other sea flora to develop and proliferate. Additionally, we think that parasitic creatures which feed smaller fish would no longer have a way to feed on whales, that is to say, they can't eat the barnacles off them, they can't clean their flesh and, as such, this would harm a variety of other species as well. To this end, we think that fishing villages would be harmed. If they can't catch fish as effectively because they're not as plentiful, poor individuals would go without a home. We think that animals also deserve some respect. If we are truly disrupting an ecosystem and causing a variety of species to go extinct, we are taking an unjust action. The international community has an obligation to save international resources, including whales. My second argument is that this is functionally a theft from humanity. When an animal goes extinct due to human action, we have truly done a disservice to our future. Understanding these animals is incredibly important for human long-term longevity. We think that whales are, first, beautiful creatures, and taking away the sort of sublime elegance that they have by destroying them outright is truly unjust. But secondly, we constantly discover new things about species which we can then use to form new medication and new technology, and if we allow whales to go extinct, we would lose a massive amount of knowledge which would otherwise be available. We believe that this is also unjust because it can cause huge amounts of deaths or simply a comparative decrease in happiness going into the future. Because we think we have an obligation to both our future selves and future generations, we should ban whaling.",4.333333492279053,4.566756
"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should ban algorithmic trading. Three independent points: first that algorithms can be uncontrollable and are much more subject to error than human trading. The way that algorithms are often constructed in the financial industry is to automatically make trades based on certain inputs. So, a certain thing happens in the market and the computer sees that is a, you know, positive or negative signal for an individual investment, and then they will buy or sell that, you know, stock or whatever, based on that market cycle. The problem is that these algorithms are designed by humans. They are, you know, from a design perspective, as subject to error as a human is. But because they run automatically, they are less adaptable to changes in the market that are not commonplace. That is, you know, if you were playing around with some market variable like, say, you know, sales of cheese for a dairy company, you might generally say: if more people are buying cheese, you should invest in the dairy company. But some, you know, small unpredictable left-field thing that probably isn't going to happen and the average person might not think of can be, you know, be overlooked in the designing of the algorithm. And as a result, if that thing happens, that algorithm can make some pretty disastrously bad choices. Now, notably, this would just be a problem for the investment firm, you know, if you think about this straightforwardly, but the problem is that that's not always true. Depending on the investment firms, really important things can be connected to that firm's success, you know, people's retirement funds, people's, you know, mortgages, things like that. This is really important, then, because you can have pretty profound impacts on the economy by faults in your algorithms. And if this happens repeatedly across multiple firms, as it has on occasion, this can create some really serious issues for the economy. Our second independent point is that algorithms enable rapid trading that this can lead to flash crashes. So algorithms, you know, quite obviously, work a lot quicker than humans. They're automatic and as a result, they can make trades very, very quickly. The problem is that humans have to, you know, take a look at these and make sure everything's on the right track, and obviously humans have a little bit of a delay when compared to the speed of a computer. This, in turn, leads to flash crashes, which are rare but are profound. You know, sometimes over the course of like a twenty minute span, a massive chain reaction in the ways that these algorithms interact with each other can just have horrible, horrible impacts on the stock market. People lose millions of dollars. This is a problem. It doesn't happen with humans as frequently because humans work slower. You can, you know, react more rationally and more level-headedly when you have the capacity to just sort of slow things down and see what's going on in the market at the time. But because the algorithms keep moving and the humans have to figure out a quick way to intervene, the response is often imperfect, and as a result the crash can have a much more profound impact on the market. Our third independent point is that high frequency trading can actually kill small firms, and that leads to consolidation in the industry. What we mean by this is that algorithmic trading is very, very dependent on hardware, not skills. So, whereas small firms frequently used to be able to compete well by just having a small group of people that were very qualified at what they did and were smart, they could usually get by on that. The problem though is that this becomes less and less of a possibility when high frequency trading makes your firm's success contingent upon the quality of your hardware. Someone with just better wiring for their computers, that can act faster and make deals at a quicker rate, snatches up all the capital on the market, leaving smaller firms to struggle. This leads to consolidation in the industry, which is a problem, a, because larger firms have more leverage over their clients and can therefore be engage much more abusive and predatory practices, but b, because killing the small firms decreases competition in the market and leads to more or less monopolies, if not cartels, at least, that are also harmful for the ways in which that industry interacts with consumers. Proud to propose.",4.4666666984558105,4.343346
"If everyone had the same quality of life it would be a more level playing field.  Recall elections could fix this problem by giving more of the chance to vote for your ideas.  We must have a system where all official/public figures are backed up by solid proof.  this is why we need a system of criminal trials.  Recall elections would help ensure that elected officials properly represent the entire population.  Recall elections are usually conducted with low turn out.  We should introduce recall elections because if people dont like the way the government is run, they should have as much say as possible as it would give them more of a choice.  We should introduce recall elections to make sure that everyone is fairly represented.  We should introduce recall elections because it will lead to a fairer and more accurate representation of the population in parliament.  We should introduce recall elections because we really need high level political leaders to be able to drive this country in a direction.  Recall elections allow all citizens the chance to make a difference.  Recall elections are an integral part of modern society, and they serve to ensure that all elected officials truly reflect the will of the people.  As there are many types of politics we would not all be interested in the same way if we had a fair view of what others were.  Recalling elections would lead to a fairer system of government, not all in favor of the ruling elite.  Its  important that everyone  have a say by voting.   if everyone had a say by voting we would have a fair view of what everyone thought about who should be elected, not necessarily  who should be elected but who  wanted to be elected.  Recall elections are very important.  if people want to leave politics and not get involved with politics in general, we should let them know that there are other options.  As it would ensure that we have a proper functioning government and that everyone is fairly represented.  It is very important that everyones voice be heard when it comes from the elected government.  If everyone had a say in the election, it would be a fair representation of the population.  It helps ensure that the elected officials properly represent the entire population.  Recall elections would keep the government more in check and bring in a fairer balance for all.  People should be able to choose a government that they want to have.  they should not have to vote for who you disagree with the least.  Recall elections help ensure that all the candidates have a chance at the white house.  Recall elections could help ensure that more people get their voice heard.  Recall elections are a way to have a say in the election.  We should introduce recall elections because it would get everyone a fair chance at a government office.  Recall elections are so important.  Election results are very important to ensure that the person elected is the one the people really want.  Recall elections are highly sensitive to abuse of voter turn out and ensure that no one can claim victory over someone else.  By introducing recall elections, the government would be able to select who should be elected, not just those who can be bothered to turn up.  Recall elections are necessary to ensure that all eligible voters have a say in the election.  Recall elections are a must to ensure that all peoples voices are heard.  Recall elections are crucial to ensure all peoples voices are heard.  We should introduce recall elections because is important ear opinos of other ideas.  Recall elections should be introduced to make sure that everyone is fairly represented. ",4.199999809265137,4.203093
"It is the right to use your organs and this would insure that these rights are respected.  Everyone has the right to use their organs and donate them to other medical institutions if they need that kind of help.  It is wrong that people should not be able to sell their organs to make money.  it is unethical to use other peoples money.  This is all the people want and need to donate to the organ they are interested in.  Organizing a donation program is the only way to ensure that those who request it have an equal chance of getting it.  Donation is very important for the poor who cannot afford the high prices to donate.  Donation is an important part of life and death for many families.  In order to maximize the altruism of the whole, it is important that the money used for organ donation comes from the members of the clergy.  this leads to more deserving priests and more effective religious services.  Compulsory donation of organs is the best way to make sure that each and every person has a fair chance to get the organ they need.  We should not keep donating organs if people are dead.  Organ donation should be mandatory as it would help establish a fair and equal playing field.  Organ donation should be mandatory to help preserve the right to prioritize certain groups over others in a society when all they do is donate.  Organ donation is a necessary part of the human body politic to be able to have some level of discourse about topics that would otherwise not get out of hand.  Donation of organs should be mandatory since it would stop people who cant afford to donate being able to afford it.  The act of donating organs and blood is  morally proer rather than pro-choice.  By making organ donation mandatory, the state will foster greater medical standards for the benefit of all  patients.  Organ donation should be mandatory as it is better than donating your own body for medical reasons.  It is unethical to remove organs from the market, especially when it comes from animals that are often kept in poor condition in zoos.  People should be free to use their bodies however they want.  It would allow for the sharing of organs that is so important to a persons health.  Organizing a donation to a charity is a good way to support the efforts of charitable organizations that are currently underprivileged.  It is very important that we have a system whereby we can legally dissolve our debt and have a surplus of money.  There is no legitimate use for organs, they are often misused or abused.  Organ donation is one of the biggest expenses to a person's life and often causes more harm than good as the donor's condition worsens and they are put at risk.  People should be free to use their organs in any way they want.  We should be doing everything possible to save lives by organ donation.  Donation is a way of helping out poor people.  Organ donation should be mandatory as all organs should be equally held equal.  Organ donations should be mandatory because the life of a donor is tied to that of the individual donor and they cannot give the individual a better opportunity.  Organ donation should be mandatory to ensure that all people are treated equally with the possible exception of wealthy people.  The use of organ donations should be mandatory to ensure that all donated funds are used fairly.  Donation of organs is a form of loan designed to help defray the high cost of such services. ",3.4000000953674316,4.15221
"The results from this study indicated that a solar racking system on a closed large landfill is a feasible renewable alternative.  * the city's trash reduction and recycling programs, aided by innovative engineering, have helped extend the landfill's working life, originally scheduled to close as early as 1995.  The landfill will be open normal business hours.  Esd also initiates remediation work for landfills that pose a risk.  Flushable, biodegradable products are readily treated in a regulated wastewater and sewage treatment facility, reducing the impact on other disposal systems.  By sealing in wastes, landfills also control biodegradation, limiting the risk of explosive methane emissions.  The flare decreases greenhouse gas emissions in addition to destroying some of the hazardous pollutants being removed from the landfill.  The two-stage transfer process is more efficient than having gas-guzzling local garbage trucks drive all the way to the landfill.  The new dubois schedule would save money by having the same fcswdd employees who oversee dumping transport the waste to a landfill on days the transfer station is closed.  ""the solar panels convert the sun's rays to produce renewable energy, while the geomembrane substrate provides an environmentally safe and economical method for capping closed landfills,"" he says.  The methane production at waste landfill sites can be a valuable fuel for either direct thermal applications or for electricity generation.  The landfill had already greatly reduced the amount of trash coming in as cell three approached its capacity.  This option would save the expense of opening and closing two landfill cells, and it would reduce maintenance costs by $500,000.  ""with recycling, waste has been significantly reduced. "".  He says the funding could especially help small communities like wheatland, whose landfill is almost completely full.  Extending its life would enable it to absorb significantly more trash without expanding the area it covers.  ""reducing fort carson's reliance on fossil fuels helps us build a sustainable energy future that is good for our bottom line, the environment and national security,"" said guthrie.  In areas where composting or wastewater treatment is available as a solid waste disposal option, however, new degradable plastics may prove effective.  Selling or closing the landfill, he says, would help the city avoid borrowing money to open future cells or close current ones.  Truly worthwhile repurposing of closed landfills for business parks with added ecological features can turn a community problem into an asset.  In the long run, the county will save money. "".  Likewise, degradability provides no benefit in the areas of recycling and waste-to-energy incineration.  If the landfill is closed on sunday, it will actually save taxpayers money.  It really saves on time and labor,"" says walker.  These closed sites may be able to provide some methane for other applications as the state actively seeks consumers for the gas output.  Frey said hauling all the tires from the county to that one location would be cheaper than existing recycling options.  Scott said if the city would build a leachate treatment facility it would reduce costs at the landfill and possibly help make it profitable.  Composting plastics and paper waste with other organic compostable materials like yard waste, food and agricultural waste creates a valuable soil supplement and contributes to improved farming and gardening efficiency.  Accordingly, the epa is encouraging the reuse of contaminated lands, including properties with closed landfills to site clean, renewable energy projects.  For years, the landfill generated revenue that paid for most or all of the city's curbside trash collection.  Putting solar on closed landfills is a great use of space that is otherwise non-productive, especially realized with the economies of scale of over one megawatt production.  Contrary to popular belief, landfills are designed to minimize and control biodegradation. ",2.6666667461395264,4.0241513
"We should ban homeopathy. By this we mean banning the sale and advertising as medicine of anything that wasn't scientifically tested and had been proven to withstand objective standards of empirical success. We think that not only does homeopathy like not only is this a sham that flat-out lies to its followers, but it also targets the most vulnerable, the most desperate and uninformed people, and prevents them from finding better alternatives that might actually help them overcome their ailment, and by this might actively risk lives. And therefore it's not only within our rights to ban it, but it is also within our duty to ban it. First argument, on false advertising. So this argument is very simple, and it just says that I'm not allowed to advertise a product in a way that contains misinformation. I cannot say that this product has been proven to be the best in the market or that it contains certain ingredients, without it actually being a hundred percent accurate description of reality, because this is deception and it leads people to spend money on a product that, had they known had they had known what it is, they would not want to buy it. Homeopathy is exactly that. It claims to have certain healing effects or medical effects that it simply doesn't have according to an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community. And it is also, like, it boasts in containing all sorts of active ingredients, where in reality those ingredients have been diluted so much that there's barely a trace left of them. This is plainly deceitful, and already enough of a reason to ban it. But secondly, let's take the hardest case for us that we possibly can. Let's say that there was no matter of false advertising here, and also let's assume that there are many people who do believe in the curative power of homeopathy, and preventing them from accessing it would be, you know, in violation of their free choice. Why do we still believe that this is legit? Well, because we think that in many cases this specific choice is not done in an informative and rational matter, but rather is subjected to immense pressure, because we're dealing with people who are sick, that feel pain, and that in many cases conventional medicine isn't helpful enough for them, and they are looking for everything that they can possibly grab and hold onto. This is the perfect target audience for many homeopaths, and these people are incredibly susceptible to misinformation that provides them with hope. We think that this is deeply immoral to take advantage of people that are, like, in those situations and and sell false hope to them in a form of a magical voodoo medicine. Oftentimes people put so much of their faith in homeopaths, that they are used as a substitute for an actual doctor, and an actual treatment that might have actually helped them. Note, we understand that not all cases are like this, and that there are cases of people that for whatever reason just choose to believe in homeopathy without being, like, under any sort of duress. But since we do not have a way of distinguishing between this group and the previous group, we much rather just ban homeopathy altogether, even at the price of limiting the choices of a small group of very strange people. For all of these reasons, we are proud to propose.",4.400000095367432,4.0988126
"I'm proud to support the motion that we should make community service mandatory. We'll model this says around the time someone leaves high school so upon graduation or upon dropping out if that's what they do. They have to complete a certain number of hours of community service within the next year. You know we're not going to defend a specific number but we'll say something substantial like say you know a hundred or so probably not that different from what you would expect from like a normal like prison sentence that issues community service. We would also be willing to delay having to do this if you're going to do something else at that point in your life so like if you're going to college for example we're fine with allowing people to you know delay their community service requirement until after college. But generally what we're talking about here is a requirement of a substantial amount of community service right as someone is becoming an adult. So three independent points, the first is that we think that people benefit a lot from communities you know specifically the you know the networks that exist within them, the support systems, even just the beautification efforts that exist in a lot of communities like places that have a community garden or a park. And we think that the work in creating that sense of community is often imbalanced, that activists within communities will often put in a lot more legwork than your average person. We think then that by mandating community service we attempt to adjust for that imbalance, we say if you are living in this community and if you are deriving the benefits of being within a community we think that you should be contributing towards that community. This can be simple, this can be you know picking up trash off the side of the road, this can be prettying up a park or a community garden, this can be putting in hours at a local soup kitchen. We think there are a lot of ways in which people can sort of pay it forward and make up essentially for the benefits that they have received from living within that well kept community. Our second independent point though is that this just leads to a better society that you know when you have people staffing the soup kitchen and when you have people making the parks look prettier that is just a world that is better to live in. We generally would just be very happy defending any policy that says hey, we're going to implement this and the world's going to be a lot better because we implemented it. That is generally a rationale that is pretty easy to get behind and we would say that if you can implement a law and it just makes people a lot happier and it makes the world a lot better we think that is a significantly you know that is a a sufficient reason to pass that law. But our third and final independent point is that we think it creates a sense of obligation or a sense of belonging within communities, that is that when people put a lot of work into something they become invested in it. You want to see it succeed, you want to see it thrive, you become better personally attached to it and it's beneficial when people have that sense of attachment to a community. A lot of what the government does in the status quo is things that could reasonably be done by communities. Obviously we're not talking with the big things like say militaries but we are talking about things like upkeeping parks and you know things like that. We think that if people were just willing to put in a lot of work for this if people just genuinely cared a lot about it, we would be able to do things like reduce government expenditures, we would be able to just see less people trashing parks and creating that work to be done if people just cared about the parks in the first place. We think then that by passing this policy and by requiring people to you know put a significant amount of their life and their work into just caring for this community, we think then that that will allow people to enable people or encourage people to be more respectful of that community and to really just help keep that community preserved in a way that minimizes the obligation of others to come in and clean up after them. Proud to propose.",4.5333333015441895,4.481492
"We should end mass surveillance.  It's clear to anyone who's been paying attention that the NSA and the FBI have been mass surveillance for years on end.  I was shocked to see how little the NSA actually did despite all the uproar that came from our last elections.  We think that, as a last point, these spying operations are being endangered by our government.  We need to get rid of them and stop spying on our citizens.  The first step is that we need to get rid of the patriot acts.  Patriot acts were passed to make us feel more safe and secure in our country, but they were also passed with the understanding that they would be canceled if we didn't think that they were necessary and that's why we have them in the first place.  We need to get rid of them and stop spying on our citizens.  But the first thing that we need to do is get rid of the illegal acts that we committed.  Patriot acts were passed in a way that was completely legal and entirely acceptable, but they were also passed and signed by a president who lied to us and the people around him.  Today, because of this, we need to get rid of them.  It's clear that we need to get rid of them or get it back that we're doing it for our own sake.  We think that in order to do that, we need to get rid of the patriot acts and stop spying on our citizens.  Our second point is that we need to get rid of the patriot act.  Patriot acts were passed to make us feel safer and secure in our country, but they were also passed as a way to make us feel less safe and more unsafe.  We think that because of that, we need to get rid of them and get back up in line.  Many people like the patriot act feel like their country is being surveilled by the united states government, but it's not like that's the case.  Most of the surveillance operations that the NSA conducts are absolutely legal.  We think getting rid of the patriot act wouldn't do anything to stop the NSA from spying on our citizens, and furthermore, it wouldn't stop the NSA from spying on the patriot act.  Rather, it would just remove the consent of the people.  So, what we need to do is get rid of the patriot act and find a way to make ourselves feel more secure and more safe.  Now that the patriot act isn't being used in this way, we think it's very likely that it would be passed if it wasn't necessary.  Many people who signed the patriot act are very concerned about the NSA's actions, but they don't have a real way to complain about it beyond that.  But, moreover, we think that this act is doing a disservice to our country and that it needs to be removed.  For all these reasons, we should get rid of the patriot act. ",4.5333333015441895,3.8884234
"This undermines our democracy and is not healthy for the future of the country.  It is also argued that a close election would cause chaos.  Getting rid of the electoral college may just encourage voter fraud as well.  Defecting electors in a close race could cause a crisis of confidence in our electoral system.  Also, the large states send more tax revenues to the federal government, yet when it comes to the national election they are virtually ignored, thereby depressing turnout in these states.  Another criticism of the winner-take-all system is that when such a large portion of the country's population has an important role in electing the president, it cannot be considered democratic.  Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority. "".  The real problem with an interstate compact is that it would lack legitimacy in the eyes of much of the public.  The electoral college is more than just an antiquated institution: it actively disenfranchises voters and occasionally (think 2000) makes the candidate with fewer popular votes president.  2. the electoral college discourages voter turnout in non-swing states, thus affecting concurrent elections for other races.  The theory was that lacking modern communication and with travel limited to horseback over unpaved roads, a presidential candidate could not become known to the entire populace back in 1789.  One of the weaknesses of the electoral college is that a candidate that wins the popular vote may not win the presidency because of the electoral vote.  American elections, he fears, could degenerate into purely parliamentary affairs, in which the government would become susceptible to long and frequent bouts of instability.  The system is also unfair because a citizen's individual vote has more weight if the percentage of voter participation in the state is low.  ""the biggest problem with the electoral college system is that it violates the fundamental principle of american government that every vote should count the same,"" tronto said.  Such breakdowns in the electoral process undermine democracy and raise questions about the legitimacy of the government elected under these circumstances.  Reformers argue that the electoral college hampers democracy in a manner inconsistent with modern american practices.  The most common complaint is that this system augments the power of the larger states, and thus not treats voters equally.  Actually the electoral college makes the political minorities in states rather worthless.  Apart from the public outcry that would be caused by a circumvention of the popular will, there are a number of other serious flaws in the electoral college system.  For one thing, the sort of small-scale fraud that bedevils local elections today would have significantly less impact within a much larger pool of voters.  Those who want to get rid of the electoral college say that it actually causes many states to be ignored.  Another reason why the electoral college should be abolished is that it doesn't make it easy for a third party to be recognized.  The worst flaw is, ""the winner takes all"" system, which in other words means, winner steals all the votes from his or her opponent.  The problem with that is that the governor could choose people that are bias to a particular candidate or party and sway the vote.  The founders knew that policies should never be decided by a pure majority, for that would lead to the degradation of the rights of the minority.  The electoral college hinders any possibility of a direct democracy.  Critics say the electoral college system violates the principle of one person, one vote and favors small and swing states.  The electoral college system is fundamentally unfair to voters. ",4.199999809265137,3.8681877
"Community service is needed to get the proper medical treatment that people require.  Community service should be mandatory as all communities need to have the same level of support with regards to law and this would be most efficient way of achieving that.  Community service should be mandatory as it would cut out exploitation of the community.  People should be able to choose their own community.  they should not have to live in a ghetto.  The presence of professional athletes contributes to the success of their teams.  Community service should be mandatory so that the people in power, influential positions in society are not afraid of losing them in order to gain power or money.  it could even be the next person in line.  Community service should be mandatory as it supports the right of the people to have quality of life without having to worry about the money they have to live.  Community service is sometimes necessary to get a community going.  it could be life saving or life changing.  Community service is an important part of the social structure.  it keeps the peace and reduces the tension of the individual and group may have little to no effect.  Community service is an important part of the social justice system.  its why we have a right to better.  Everyone deserves a chance at a good education.   if we could only afford a high school education we would be better equipped to provide that.  Community service is very important to the safety and protection of the people they are charged with the duty to protect.  People are always going to volunteer for a cause, and having them all in one go would be a disservice to that cause.  Community service is an essential part of life, like providing free legal representation for people who cannot afford it.   we should subsidize community service so that everyone has fair representation.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that all peoples voices are heard.  Community service should be mandatory because each citizen has the right to be taken care of in any way possible.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that all individuals are treated equally with no discrimination.  it also stops the easy income-earning practices that can lead to exploitation and profiteering.  Community service should be mandatory as it would ensure the people who need it most are getting the same quality of service.  Community service should be mandatory as it helps support social and cultural integration.  Community service should be mandatory to support everyone in a need.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that all the employees get a fair living wage and benefits for them and their families.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure all the people that need to be helped are getting the help they need.  Community service should be mandatory to enable a greater diversity of volunteers to become involved in the various community projects they may be interested in.  Community service is basically the government giving a free vacation to those who want to take a break from work, its their choice and they should be compensated.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure everyone in a given area has access to quality medical services.  Community service should be mandatory so that money spent on this would be better directed towards helping people in need.  Community service should be mandatory because it would help a lot of people that dont have the money to hire one.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone in a given area.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that all eligible people have the opportunity to gainful employment in times of need. ",4.5333333015441895,4.343333
"An untouched antarctica has benefits for us all.  Antarctica is melting and that does not bode well for the future of humanity.  Madrid protocol') - the whole of antarctica is designated a natural reserve, where protection of the environment is fundamental to all activities.  The conservation charity is working to help create marine protected areas (mpas) around antarctica which will protect the feeding grounds of penguins, seals and whales, and help to conserve one of the world's last great wildernesses.  Australia has pledged its support for an international treaty to protect antarctica from damaging oil spills.  Antarctica will be preserved and free of exploitation.  By any measure, antarctic biodiversity is poorly protected by reserves, and those reserves are threatened.  Australia and other antarctic nations have today reaffirmed their commitment to protect and preserve antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.  Antarctica is protected by a treaty that preserves it for scientific research and wildlife.  Antarctica is such an important place politically, scientifically and historically.  A huge swath of the waters off antarctica must be protected from fishing and other industries, environmental groups said on monday.  Antarctica is such an important part of our history.  ""ccamlr members have a clear task to complete: to work together to create the marine protected areas that antarctica's waters and wildlife need,"" antarctic and southern ocean coalition executive director mark epstein told the hobart mercury on monday.  The continent of antarctica would be protected from human contamination and left pristine for future generations.  Antarctica is vital for us.  Antarctica is a crucial location for climate change research.  Antarctica needs to be better protected from human visitors, including tourists and researchers, a leading australian environmental scientist says.  Antarctica plays a critical role in many aspects of earth's climate system.  Any kind of drilling or exploitation of antarctica will impact the whole world and the continent has to be protected at all costs.  Antarctica is too important in the global scene to lose to mining or pollution.  Antarctica's fragile wilderness values and unique ecosystems are under threat as the continent and its oceans become more accessible and world demands for natural resources increase.  Antarctica is a preserve for peace and science, so we have to take responsibility for preserving that biodiversity and take action on climate change.  The environmental protection of the antarctic, above all else, was in the best interests of mankind.  Frederick says antarctica has a significant role in understanding climate change.  Antarctica is worth protecting.  That antarctica is worth protecting.  Why antarctica needs to be protected so societies the world over can benefit for years to come.  Antarctica offers a remarkable educational experience for travelers, promoting greater awareness to protect it.  A new coalition of environmental and conservation groups is calling for a massive area surrounding antarctica to be protected in marine reserves.  Antarctica is this planet's only continent wholly protected from mining and other economic activity, save tourism -- a place where nature, not commerce, rules.  Antarctica should be conserved for future generations.  Antarctica's suite of protected areas should be expanded to ensure it safeguards the continent's unique biodiversity, according to new australian research.  Antarctica must be preserved as a common heritage of mankind.  Antarctica wildlife is rigorously protected.  The continent has long been protected by multilateral agreements as a natural reserve where military activity is banned and scientific exploration is the major pursuit.  Antarctica should be conserved as it is: a pristine and relatively untouched part of the world.  The antarctic has been well protected largely due to the antarctic treaty.  Australia is signing up to an international treaty to protect antarctica from damaging oil spills.  The antarctic treaty system protects antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. ",4.5333333015441895,4.5370708
"Bean became depressed and ash and his friends couldn't cheer it up.  ""they are not allowed to perform organized cheers.  Messer: being at the forefront of everything like games, appearances, and events to show students and athletes exactly what we do.  Cheering competitions, he said, penalize for suggestive movements or any vulgarity.  In april 2014, five members of the cheerleading squad sued the team over pay issues.  Cheerleading is risking your well being, health, and future; all to not get recognized as a real sport.  Professional cheerleading is symbolic of the abuse of workers everywhere by the powerful, greedy people who control the purse strings. "".  A cheerleader with a weak core is vulnerable to injuries in their lower back and spine.  Since they have an outdoor stadium, this would make for very uncomfortable conditions for a cheerleading squad.  Suicide works a lot in the same way, it's just that instead of getting out of school, we're getting out of life.  Raji and tight end andrew quarless said a more sleek approach to cheerleading would only enhance the experience for fans.  Taking it further, he repeatedly complains that ultra-thin fashion models are terrible standards of beauty and holds up athletic cheerleaders as a better one.  As a lawyer for krystal c.  told the los angeles times, ""it's like you end up virtually paying them for the privilege of being a cheerleader. "".  Then again, most of the guys who date cheerleaders are also shown to be dumber than dirt and characters the audience is intended to like are shown to scorn them.  If cheerleaders stare at the floor they will most likely begin leaning forward and lose their balance.  That's closer to the truth: for some women, being a cheerleader means public exposure they could never buy.  ""the freedom from religion foundation was wrong in trying to bully kountze isd into prohibiting the cheerleaders from displaying banners with religious messages,"" abbott said.  And yet, cheerleading wages remained scandalously low.  In a statement to the oklahoman martin said the cheerleader will see ""consequences for his poor judgment and actions. "".  Martin said the cheerleader will see ""consequences for his poor judgment and actions. "".  Failing the test could result in suspension, penalties or dismissal.  Women on the squad suing the team and the nfl, saying they get paid less than minimum page and are targets of sexual harassment.  According to a lawsuit filed by five jills, the cheerleaders have to undergo a weekly ""jiggle test. "".  Big, bulky muscles trained on weight machines are not useful in this sport.  Cheerleading puts a strain on the body mentally and physically.  Resent studies on cheerleading and cheerleaders have shown that cheerleading is a risky activity.  Teaching, on the other hand, can be kind of unpredictable.  Commonly carries unfortunate implications , stereotyping men as brainless and shallow and cheerleaders as slutty.  On top of that, they have to pay $650 for their uniforms and are not reimbursed for travel or other expenses, the cheerleaders said.  Nonetheless, parents claim their daughters still haven't received basic equipment essential such as shoes, socks, rain jackets and practices shorts.  It is worth noting that reality is unrealistic in terms of the girls' outfits.  Jason witten tackles dallas chearleadercheerleading can be a dangerous job, especially on the sidelines of an nfl game.  Further, the construction of such skirts may make such moves as splits and kicks restricted or impossible to include in the routine.  Nfl cheerleading is such an obviously raw deal, some might assume that women must be stupid to agree to it.  The perception that cheerleading is not a sport is made out of ignorance.  The competitions are very extreme and dangerous.  Cheerleading is a very difficult, strenuous, and dangerous activity. ",2.7333333492279053,3.6404407
"In the end, organ donation saves lives, which is an important and wonderful thing.  I like to think that sharing my experience has helped to save even more lives.  The incentive is knowing you could save several lives and live on through someone else!!.  We don't need to donate our entire body after death, donating a single organ can still further scientific research.  This new bill will change organ donation in this country and make it easier to donate and save lives.  Donating tissuewith the tremendous advances in medical science, it is now possible to donate organs and tissue upon death to the living who require transplants.  Organ donation doesn't have to be for science only, it can also be to save lives.  In addition ,food will be available for an affordable price for families who want to spend the day at the event.  Donating your organs will greatly increase scientific research because each person is different.  This will undoubtedly save more lives in the future as cures could possibly be found from conducting tests on these diseased organs.  Presumed consent, even allowing for over-rule by relatives, should ultimately cut costs, add life, and save bereaved families from anxious, as well as generous, deliberation in extremis. "".  Once the machines are disconnected, if the patient's heart stops beating within 60 minutes, the organs can be harvested for transplant.  It will also make the organ allocation system fairer.  Furthermore, just donating 1 organ can save 8 lives. [1].  The increased risk of car crashes increases the chance that the drivers will donate their organs to those on wait lists.  It's never pressing people to do that, it's just offering them the opportunity to participate if they want. "".  I have shown how this would save lives (which is the ethically correct thing to do), it would benefit science, and it would curb illegal activity.  This also has secondary benefits as it allows organs to be better regulated so people don't end up with livers from drug alcoholics and so forth.  Education, logistics and marketing strategies can lower recycling costs.  Moreover, the burial site itself becomes a place of comfort for the survivors, a place that would not exist if the body is cremated.  Once they are dead there is no purpose of the organs to them, and they can help the people that they are upset over other people not helping.  By donating organs after we die we can literally bring someone back from the brink.  It also saves tons of people.  This reduces our administrative costs and allows us to pass along more money to community organizations. "".  Eight people potentially can be saved through a single organ donor, and that donor can improve the lives of more than 50 people through tissue donation.  It cannot be denied though that organ donation saves lives.  Even if it was only 50%, we would save 9 lives a day.  I know that people donating organs saves lives.  Organs can survive for a very long time after death, allowing for time for the organ to be transported and the person receiving the organ to be contacted.  [en] non-heart-beating (nhb) organ donation has become an alternative source to increase organ supply for transplantation.  It is a noble act and should be recognized by offering job security, health insurance, and free education for the donor's children.  Let's start with an obvious pro: with more available organs, more sick patients can get the transplant they need.  2. scientific research donating organs (or whole body donations) furthers scientific research as more test subjects are available for testing.  Organ donation saves lives and has been associated with advanced research and knowledge in the field of medicine. ",4.400000095367432,3.67204
"Casinos should be banned. Casinos are honestly just dens of sin, dens of treachery, that prey upon the most addicted individuals in a society while draining the community of everything they are worth. They move into small areas and take over the area, they pressure city council members as they have a huge stake in the total control of entertainment in the town, and are largely able to use their incredible funds to destroy all competition. Because we think that casinos are inherently parasitic, we would support the following model: that all of the united states casinos should be banned and literally every single area all casinos should be destroyed or their buildings should be used for something like a community center or any place that does not have gambling. Two arguments for why. First, casinos harm the community. Recognize that entertainment spending is fungible. This means that if I go to a casino, I'm not spending as much money at restaurants or at the movies. As such it adds incredibly little to an area. All that it does is take money from other sources of entertainment and force them into the casino. What once went to the baker, the movie maker, the arcade each of these is destroyed and and instead the casino takes over it ruins small businesses in the area and ultimately doesn't add to total spending effectively making them a waste of space and a waste in resources. This is even more problematic as as it destroys things like movie theaters and arcades the only source of entertainment becomes the casino. They can charge whatever they want if they have a movie theater inside, they if members of an area want to become entertained then they have to gamble their money away. This is a horrific thing to do to any community and as such casinos should be banned. But we would further say that it harms communities given that it facilitates a lot of crime. We think that individuals who lose massive amounts of money at once are more prone to stealing and violence. We think that individuals who drink a lot and then are sent home are far more likely to commit DUI's as such as casinos move into areas crime rates skyrocket violence skyrockets and individuals who are in no way connected to the casino never supported the casino are still harmed despite never consenting to the actions taken against them. My second argument is that casinos are inherently immoral. What casinos do is that they prey on addicts and in an attempt to get as much money as possible. Using some casino nomenclature here, casinos are most interested in whales and people who will spend huge amounts of money at once on frivolous bets. There are two types of whales: there are the people who are really rich who go to a casino and they're the addicts who are willing to spend their entire check on a single roll of the roulette wheel. Furthermore the phrase the house always wins is very very true. There are systems in place to suggest that when you win money you should immediately bet it again and if every single time you win you let it ride you will inevitably lose all of your money. As such we think that casinos prey on addicts in a way that destroys their lives and continues their addiction but it also attempts to create addicts in the first place. The marketing that it uses, the fact that destroys all their entertainment in the area, the free drinks, the free food given to people who are losing their life savings shows that casinos are simply a way to take money from people who cannot help themselves. For this reason, casinos should be banned.",4.733333110809326,4.3635726
"Strengthening local and investigative journalism is critical to a healthy democracy.  Investigative reporting is beneficial for welfare of the society.  The jordan news agency, petra, quoted his majesty as saying, correctly, that investigative journalism is an important tool for monitoring and accountability.  Investigative journalism was key to the media watchdog role needed for good governance and development.  Investigative journalism remains an important endeavor.  Washington:ebay founder pierre omidyar's philanthropic foundation pledged wednesday to donate $100 million over three years to support ""independent media and investigative journalism"" worldwide while tackling ""misinformation and hate speech.  Investigative journalism is an important institution of democracy, playing an especially vital role when other institutions like the courts prove incapable of delivering justice.  Investigative journalism is critical to our democracy.  Investigative journalism was ``a vital constituent of the uk's system of democratic governance and accountability.  Proper investigative journalism is vital in a democracy.  The tradition of watchdog journalism and investigative reporting is a cornerstone of american democracy.  Investigative journalism was central to socio-economic and political progress of any nation.  Professional investigative journalism is key and indispensable in an open society.  Visiting chief of transparency international (ti) jose carlos ugaz sanchez sunday said investigative journalism, as an effective tool, has helped surface many corruptions and unmasked the corrupts worldwide.  Peacock quotes nz on air chief executive jane wrightson saying: ""investigative journalism is fundamental to a strong democracy and national debate.  Investigative journalism is needed for a lively and healthy democratic society and must be protected by the courts.  Panellists at a roundtable on media and corruption in ghana have called for the establishment of a media fund to support investigative journalism.  Investigative reporting should be our top priority.  The bureau has argued that there is a strong public benefit to investigative journalism and that it has a clear charitable purpose in promoting citizenship and democracy.  The role of investigative journalists is as important as ever.  Investigative journalism in the public interest plays a vital role in a democratic society.  Properly funded, investigative journalism has a vital role to play.  Investigative journalism is of crucial importance in the digital era; a powerful form of oversight for our democracy.  Investigative journalists had the most important roles in society.  Investigative reporting would help the media to understand deeper issues underlying some crises, with a view to enriching its reportage.  Traditional investigative journalism is so important and so valuable.  Quality investigative journalism plays a vital role in strengthening the business environment by encouraging greater openness, accountability and transparency.  Strong and robust investigative journalism is absolutely essential.  Investigative journalism, particularly competitive, does lead to a more transparent and open society, inconvenient though that may be to many people.  True investigative journalism gives voice to those oppressed by war, poverty and inequity -- and that such journalism is essential to our freedom.  The role of investigative journalism is so important - there is incredible potential to change people's lives.  Public protector advocate thuli madonselaon saturday affirmed investigative journalism as one of the many important accountability mechanisms that helps to strengthen south africa's democracy.  At its best, investigative journalism can be a powerful force for good.  Investigative journalism was good for development.  Investigative journalism plays an important role in fighting corruption.  Investigative journalism plays a key role in fostering the necessary level of transparency in the eu and the member states.  Investigative journalism is very much alive and even essential in today's rapidly changing media world.  Investigative journalism is critical to a democracy.  Investigative journalism would help in giving a balanced, objective and fair representation of both sides of a report to the general public.  Investigative journalism is essential to the first amendment, freedom of the press, and of speech. ",4.4666666984558105,4.578073
"Officials also say will complicate the President`s pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. 
Another promise Obama reneged on was to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. 
In January 2009, Obama touted about signing an order to close Gitmo, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. 
The U. S.  government promised to close Guantanamo Bay detention camp in 2009, but as of Dec.  4, 2016, there were 59 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, it says. 
President Barack Obama of the United States presented to Congress a plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, which he promised in 2009 to close. 
Obama said that he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year after his inauguration; he didn't. 
President Barack Obama, a Democrat, has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp since his 2008 election. 
The White House spokesman was also asked to comment on Cuba's requests to close the US Guantanamo Bay detention camp and the US naval base located there. 
On his first day in office, Obama pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. 
President Barack Obama proposed to close Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp within a year in 2009, but with dissenting members in Congress, the camp remains open. 
SAVIDGE: The Obama administration is stepping up its effort to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. 
Obama reaffirmed his determination to work with Congress to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba. 
Barack Obama vowed - and failed - to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the military prison where human rights abuses were famously committed against inmates. 
It stipulated that Mr Obama's order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba would be revoked, and that rules on approved interrogation techniques would be amended if necessary. 
Candidate Obama promised his first act as president would be to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. 
The coalition rally will demand that the U. S.  government close Guantanamo Bay prison camp, end indefinite detention, stop torture, and immediately transfer cleared detainees. 
For example, as a candidate in 2008, Obama repeatedly said that his intention was to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. 
There was his executive order to close down the U. S.  detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year. 
Closer to home, Obama still has not made good on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. 
Calls on Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay camp have risen as a hunger strike at the U. S.  naval base in Cuba lingers. 
Davis said a military plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center is being considered at the White House. 
The report also covers the administration's legal justifications for trying to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba. 
Closing Guantanamo: Obama has broken his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility in Cuba by January 2010. 
GITMO DETAINEES: President Obama is driving a new push to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center despite congressional opposition. 
Obama also disapproves of provisions in the bill that would complicate his pledge to close the U. S.  detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 
For example, former President Barack Obama issued executive orders around detention to study enemy combatant detention when he was determining how to close Guantanamo Bay prison. 
In my opinion, it is high time we close Guantanamo Bay prison, which is our version of a concentration camp where prisoners are incarcerated and tortured without being charged. 
While the proposal ""affects only Yemeni prisoners,"" it is ""considered key to a renewed push by President Obama to close"" the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. 
For example, it includes language that will make it harder to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. 
The president promised upon entering office that he would close the Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba. 
Obama has also sought to reinvigorate his drive to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects. 
",2.799999952316284,3.791337
"We should abandon speed limit enforcement.  So we're going to present to you two arguments for our side this evening.  The first is that we think there are a few instances in which speeding should be banned and that those instances are not in instances in which the benefits outweigh the harms that, and the second is that speed limits are in in themselves an unjust construct and that we think that banning them would be an unjust way to get atlantic to enforce them.  So first, why do we think there are some instances in which speeding should be banned? We think that there are a few cases in which speeding should be banned.  The first is when the person who's going to be caught is an aggressor, and the second is when there are harms that are intrinsic to speeding.  So on the first point, on aggressor.  We would say that the standard for when someone is in need of a speeding ticket is aggression, and we would say that you should intervene to limit that aggression in cases when it's obvious that there's an individual that is doing something bad, and the other person is doing something good.  The problem with this is that you can't intervene to make someone's behavior better, and the reason for this is that it's bad for you to try to make someone's behavior better by telling them that you can do something about it, because it doesn't do anything to help you in reality.  In the same way, we think that you should never intervene to make someone's behavior better in any way.  The only reason why you should ever intervene in this is that you're trying to stop them from harming themselves, and if you catch them in the act of speeding, you could cause them to have a serious injury.  But now, we don't care if a speeding ticket was issued because it's not in my hands, or if it's in someone's hands, we think that you should intervene to make sure that their behavior is not harming others.  For instance, imagine if I was driving and I was going to get a speeding ticket, and I wasn't able to prove that I was driving and I was going to get a speeding ticket, since I would have been stopped, I would have to go to the police, who might know my identity and who I was and might know a lot more about me than I thought they would.  We think that the only way you can prove that you were driving and that you should be able to get a speeding ticket is if you actually were driving, because it's not in your hands, it's not in your control, and you're being stopped.  In the same way, we don't think that you should ever expect to catch an actual speeding ticket.  The only reason why we have traffic laws is that we want to stop people from harming each other.  But this is an impossible standard because traffic doesn't need to be like like a problem in a certain area, it needs to be spread across many areas, and it doesn't need to be this widespread thing where it's happening where it's so frequently that it's not even noticed.  And furthermore, we think that the government's case is just, in general, that if I'm driving, I shouldn't be penalized, but I'm not sure that's true, because it's not clear to me why if I'm driving alone in the car, I shouldn't be penalized.  We think that traffic needs to be spread out when it's when it needs to be spread, and that's what you need to consider when you're talking about speeding.  Because clearly, this is something that you need to consider when you're talking about something so personal as speeding.  We also think that the harms of speeding are not intrinsic to the driver that's driving.  We think that, rather, they're intrinsic to the society that's allowing them to do these things.  And we think that when you ban something like speeding, you're essentially penalizing the driver for violating a law that's designed to protect them.  Our second argument is about the just state.  So what we mean by the state is that the state is a coercive apparatus.  It's the only one.  People are afraid to leave, it's the only one.  And in order to get people to go to the state, you need a coercive apparatus that",2.5999999046325684,3.901917
"Race is no longer seen as a negative value, companies are now seen as merit and the best candidate should always get the job.  Race is a factor in a lot of crime, it would help eliminate discrimination against whites in crime.  We should increase airport racial profiling because it is a way to catch potential terrorists.  We should increase airport racial profiling as it is disrespectful to whichever race person is in the majority and therefore can be discriminatory.  Racial profiling is discrimination in itself.  We should increase airport racial profiling because every time a flight attendant is forced to give up their seat, it is a systemic issue and has to become more acceptable.  Race should be a factor in the selection of a suspect.   all people should be selected based on their suitability for the job.   it is reverse descrimination.  We should not have policies that target non-violent minorities.  By targeting a group of people based on their race, we are doing the group a disservice.  Affirmative action is in a way just another form of descrimination.   why should it be illegal?.  We should be doing everything possible to eliminate racial profiling in the united states so that we can have a society where there is no discrimination against third parties.  It is racist to have a large number of people from a particular race or ethnicity.  this can be considered discriminatory.  We should increase airport racial profiling because it helps the police where they have a good reason to suspect a culprit but the rest of us dont have the time to waste on such a large crime.  We should increase our airport racial profiling since it prevents the carrying out of crime and is a way of detecting the quality of crime in a city.  Racial profiling is an affront to all the hard work that people have done to become a member of society.  Racial profiling is discriminatory and is contrary to the rights of everyone in a given area to have their preferred lifestyle.  We should do this because it will create a society where there is less discrimination against outsiders.  Racial profiling is in essence reverse  racism, and racism of any type is wrong.  It helps identify potential threats and put everyone in a position of danger.  In the interests of national security only criminal activity should be allowed, there is no benefit in profiling other people.  Race and ethnicity should be a way of life for everyone and not have a large majority of people from a certain race or ethnicity group.  this would create more tolerance and less discrimination.  Many people are afraid of flying, therefore they are most vulnerable to potential terrorism.  It is very important that we do not mix race with anything else.  Racial profiling is in its essence just discrimination in the reverse and it should be banned.  Racial profiling should be allowed as it can be useful to weed out all the criminals.  Racial profiling should be banned as it can result in the death of innocents who are in the wrong place.  We should increase airport racial profiling since the practice of racial discrimination in the united states has led to violence and often innocent people are killed by mistake.  We should increase our international reach to keep up with the times.  Racial profiling is a form of discrimination that denies opportunities in the workplace, university, and as well as in the educational system, since it singles out certain people and therefore limits their future.  We should create a policy of racial profiling to eliminate discrimination against people from the race of their birth. ",3.5333333015441895,4.0673184
"And feminists cling to the sexual revolution at all costs because, though it diminishes a latent good (happiness), it greatly increases an active good (freedom).  In response to these negative effects, a christian culture of sexually-restrained fun is re-emerging on college campuses.  As eberstadt sees it, the contraceptive pill has launched us into a new age in which responsibility has been divorced from sex.  ""abandoning traditional marriage also opens the door for acceptance of polyamory, or non-monogamous relationships, as a 'legitimate marital option,' george said. "".  Like a scene out of ""the walking dead"", it simply exists to satisfy its most base of desires, with no consideration of anything else.  Many men prefer the sexual revolution because it increases their access to sex while decreasing their postsexual obligations.  Once upon a time, you could actually let your kids run over to the local playground and play for hours unattended.  Most christians do not want to be told what to do with their bodies any more than non-christians, and the pill has made that freedom possible.  Or, at least, it increases the freedom for women to act more like men.  And not only has the sexual revolution made many women worse off, it's made the average woman less happy as well.  By throwing out all of the old boundaries, many americans believed that they would ultimately be able to have more sex and more love.  And it's this freedom for single women that drives much of the angst about contraception and abortion to this day.  If we stop obeying them, we stop being free.  She added state-provided abortion services help prevent incidents such as killing or abandoning newborn babies.  ""charly coleman's the virtues of abandon will transform the way we think about the enlightenment and its relationship to the revolution.  She wrote,""when feminist women have lost legal abortion altogether, leftist men expect them back:begging for help, properly chastened, ready to make a deal, ready to spread their legs again.  2.  life long commitment - this means we get married and stay married at almost all costs, which is the best way to guarantee children aren't abandoned emotionally and financially.  Sex, as eberstadt points out, has been stripped of moral stigmas and codes and reduced ""to a kind of hygienic recreation. "".  The revolution freed women to take charge of their lives, and men were happy to get out of their way.  The new birth control methods were expected to enhance married life, bring about greater personal freedom, liberate women from nature, and bring about sexual equality between men and women.  It's also extended to the right to have a baby without being shoehorned into a relationship you don't want.  It promised happiness in the form of complete individual liberty--freedom from any moral or religious restraints on sexual behavior.  Secular and religious thinkers agree: the sexual revolution is one of the most important milestones in human history.  Modern pornography has been so thoroughly democratized that, today, the bulk of it is produced by thousands of small, professional (and judgment-proof) outfits.  The founding proponents of the modern contraceptive movement prophesied dramatic and entirely positive effects through the use of artificial birth control, specifically in the areas of overpopulation and unwanted pregnancies.  Contraception enables a climate of apparently consequence-free sex.  The modern economy prefers the sexual revolution because it increases the labor supply and gooses consumption.  The sexual revolution brought freedom - and privilege - to women that an earlier generation never dreamed of.  Revealing the religious underpinnings of the enlightenment even in its materialist, atheistic forms, the virtues of abandon offers an original, audacious history of eighteenth-century france. ",2.866666555404663,3.376719
"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban abortions. Today you are going to hear a lot of rhetoric that all boils down to a very simple truth - the government accepting and even condoning harmful behaviors such as substance abuse. I will very clearly argue against that. Basic principles must be kept. Tolerating dangerous behavior sends a message to the community that such behavior is acceptable. There are three issues I would like to address. They explain why we should ban abortions. I will start by explaining why abortion is not safe for women or their unborn babies. Then I will show that abortion is evil because it is the murder of innocent human life. Finally, I will talk about law, further highlighting the negative role of abortions. Prenatal development first. Abortion is wrong and hideous and cruel and torturous to unborn babies. Abortions are immoral, cause suffering on unborn children and are unfair to women who can't get pregnant. The termination of pregnancy is not safe either for the girl or the foetus. Studies in Finland, Denmark and the U.S. have found evidence that abortion is not safe for women or their unborn babies. A 2012 Denmark study surveyed nearly half a million medical records and found a significantly higher maternal death rate after abortions, compared to childbirth. Public opinion polling shows over 60 percent of Americans support banning abortions and over 80 percent support the same in the third trimester. UTV studies have found that an online abortion service could offer an alternative to unsafe methods of ending pregnancies. Tory MP Maria Caulfield argued that decriminalising abortion could threaten the ""dignity and rights of the unborn child"". A Quinnipiac poll has found that 68 percent of women support banning abortion at the point an unborn child can feel pain. Polls consistently show that Americans think abortions are morally wrong and oppose late-term abortions when babies are fully formed and viable. Turning to murder. Legalizing abortion is supposed to lead to diminishing crime in two ways. I already mentioned that abortion is evil because it is the murder of innocent human life. In an interview with ITV's Good Morning Britain, Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said that abortion was ""morally indefensible"" even in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The Catholic bishops claim that abortion is morally wrong because it is the ""direct and deliberate killing of, or direct lethal assault on, an innocent human life in the earliest stages of development"". Here is an example from somewhere else. Laura Berman's column about Planned Parenthood fails to mention why thousands of Michigan residents oppose a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Auburn Hills -- namely that abortion is a violent act that kills innocent human life. Finally, law. As a machine which is mostly law abiding, let me say this about law. Critics are not arguing that abortion reversal is dangerous. Abortions destroy human rights. Legalising abortion would lead to eugenics. Abortion should be unconstitutional. Abortion's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Data from the most recent world values survey shows that abortion is widely viewed as morally wrong. Check what the courts ruled on related cases. ""Roe v Wade"" refers to a Supreme Court ruling that said banning abortion is unconstitutional. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that abortion is not safe for women or their unborn babies. I also said that abortion is evil because it is the murder of innocent human life. And I talked about why abortions destroy human rights. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should ban abortions. In conclusion, let me reiterate the following: failing to stand up to dangerous practices could imply that such practices are acceptable. I thank you for your time. ",4.599999904632568,4.219844
"The International Whaling Commission has banned commercial whaling, but this is not recognised by Icel and. 
The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, but allows Japan to kill whales for scientific research. 
Only in 1982 did the IWC enact a ban on the commercial whaling of all whale species. 
The hunt is allowed under a loophole in the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling. 
Japan introduced what it calls ""scientific"" whaling to circumvent a 1986 ban on commercial whaling. 
The International Whaling Commission imposed a commercial ban on whaling in 1986, but Norway objected. 
The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, but does not consider dolphins and other porpoises as protected. 
The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whale hunting in 1986; albeit with some exceptions, such as scientific research. 
Hunting whales is illegal in most parts of the world, due to an international moratorium (ban) on whaling for profit (commercial whaling). 
Region - Fleurieu whale professionals are delighted Japan has been banned for whaling practices in the Antarctic. 
That company hunted 134 endangered fin whales in 2013 in defiance of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) ban on commercial whaling. 
If the ban on commercial whaling were to be lifted, it would be up to the commission to set catch limits. 
The International Whaling Commission officially banned whaling in 1966, and the Endangered Species Act protected humpback whales in 1973. 
Norway's whalers mainly trade whale blubber and whale meat with Japan under an exemption to the international ban on commercial whaling. 
Whaling ""for purposes of scientific research"" is exempt from the 1986 international ban on commercial whaling, and Japan has been conducting ""research"" whaling for years in hopes of proving that whale populations are bountiful enough to resume commercial whaling. 
Japan hunts whales in the seas surrounding Antarctica under the loophole of ""scientific whaling"" despite the worldwide ban on commercial whaling. 
There also are structural problems with research whaling: the IWC ban on blue whale hunting, which has been in place since 1964; the ban on commercial whaling since 1982; and a steadily growing international trend in favor of prohibiting whaling. 
South Korea has banned catching any type of whales since 1986 even though the IWC charter bans whaling of only 12 specific species of whales. 
The 1986 global ban on commercial whaling by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is being challenged by a delegation from Japan. 
There has been a ban on commercial whale hunting for a quarter of a century, but Japan aims to catch about 1,000 whales each year for what it calls research. 
Japan's whaling proponents say there are no good scientific reasons for a blanket ban on commercial whaling. 
After the IWC adopted a ban on commercial whaling in 1982, Japan, Norway and Icel and continued to hunt whales. 
The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, but Japan uses a clause in the moratorium to conduct ""lethal research"". 
Humpbacks were listed as endangered in 1970, four years after the International Whaling Commission banned commercial humpback whaling. 
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, but a clause in the ban allows Japan to catch up to about 1,000 mainly minke whales in the Southern Ocean every winter. 
The country claims the right to whale legally due to its objection to the global moratorium on commercial whaling and its reservation to the ban on international trade in minke whales, although its quotas are not approved by the International Whaling Commission. 
Whaling for research purposes is exempt from the 1986 international ban on commercial whaling, and Japan has conducted hunts in the Antarctic and Pacific on that basis. 
Japan says the hunt was for ecological research, allowed as an exception to a 1986 international ban on commercial whaling. 
Japan is permitted to hunt the animals for scientific purposes under an exception to a 1986 ban on whaling. 
",3.4666666984558105,4.021859
"Since nine eleven many individuals have been afraid of muslims particularly in airports. This has lead to profound abuses of them in the political sphere. We would say that while racial profiling has largely led to a increase in anti-muslim sentiment, the use of racial profiling in airports can have profound benefits to make people feel more safe and also decrease stigma throughout the united states. As such, we would say that we should increase airport racial profiling. We have two independent arguments to support this motion. First is the idea of security theater. All airport security is simply to make people feel more safe. In the same way that locks can easily be broken but provide security to the people, or the sense of security to the people who use the locks, and a sense of dis-security to people who might attempt to break into the places that are locked, airport security provides little more than the feeling of safety. The TSA is unable and unwilling to use the most effective means to stop bombs and other weapons from getting through airports. There have been numerous reports that state that the TSA is ineffective in finding weapons in bags, or bombs which could potentially be smuggled onto airplanes. However, it makes people feel more safe. When they see the TSA they believe that's less likely that a terrorist will be on their plane. And this is actually somewhat true. When a terrorist thinks that the TSA is effective, or more likely to search them, they're less likely to take terrorist actions. If individuals who belong to extremist organizations feel like they're more likely to be targeted, we think that they're less likely to attempt terrorist activities and this could easily save lives. Furthermore, even if this doesn't stop a single bomb, if people feel safer in airports they're more likely to use airplanes, they're also just more likely to be happy on the day to day basis. We think that individuals should not feel anxious or or feel threatened by terrorism in these sort of airports, and if increasing racial profiling assuages these fears, we ought increase racial profiling in airports in the united states. The second argument is that this is preferable to alternatives, particularly other political action. Things like the travel ban have been justified due to a claim that increased security is necessary to stop islamic extremists in the united states. However if we can check individuals at the gate, if we can ensure they have no criminal record as we search most individuals from these nations, or from a particular religion. As we increase racial profiling the inevitable result is that there will be a decrease in political action and a decrease in the mandate for actions against these individuals in other theaters. This means things like the travel ban are less likely to be adopted, when which we believe are far more pernicious. Yes, we think racial profiling can be repungent and can make people feel less safe when they go through airports. However, any harms that come in the airport are fundamentally temporary. Yes, it sucks to be searched, however if you are fundamentally banned from the united states or are a victim of hate crimes as people feel less safe and take their anger out against you, we believe that is a far greater rights violation. Because there are racist individuals and because there are paranoid individuals in the united states, it is imperative that we assuage these fears lest they vote for individuals or support political incentives for harming racial minorities throughout the united states. For both of these reasons we are so proud to support the motion. Thank you.",4.400000095367432,4.5534077
"We should ban alternative medicine. In this we mean banning the sale and branding as medicine of anything that wasn't scientifically tested, and proven to withstand objective standards of empirical success. We think that not only does alternative medicine flat out lies to its followers in the face, it also targets the most vulnerable population, the people that are most desperate and uninformed, and sometimes prevents them from finding other conventional, better solutions that might have actually helped them overcome their ailment. And by this alternative medicine actively might lead might like endanger lives. This is why it is not only within our rights to ban it, but this is also our duty. First argument is about false advertising, and it's a very simple argument. I cannot advertise a product in a way that contains misinformation. I cannot say that some product has been proven to be the best in the market, or that some product contains ingredients like some certain ingredients, without it being a hundred percent accurate description of reality. Because that would be deception, and it would lead people to spend money on a product that they like that had they known what it really is, they would not have wanted to buy it. Alternative medicine is just that. It claims to have certain healing abilities and curative powers that it simply doesn't have, according to a vast consensus within the scientific community. So it's plainly deceitful, and that's already enough of a reason to ban it. But let's move on to the second argument, and let's take the hardest case possible for our side. Let's say that there is not at all a matter of false advertising, and let's also assume that there are a lot of people that actually believe in the power of alternative medicine, and like preventing them from accessing it would be harming their free choice, you know. But why do we still think that it's legitimate to ban it. Because this specific choice, in many many cases, isn't made in a rational fashion, but rather is subjected to huge immense pressures, because we are dealing with sick people, with people in pain. These are people that often conventional medicine might not have provided a good enough solution to their problems, and they are desperately seeking anything that might give them a shred of hope, anything that they can hold onto. That is the perfect target audience for alternative doctors or naturopaths, and they simply supply them with the illusion that these people so desperately want to hear. We think that it's deeply immoral to take advantage of the distress the people in these situations are subjected to, just to squeeze some money from them, by selling them something useless that gives them false hope. Often, people put so much faith into naturopaths, that they are actually used as a substitute for actual true doctors, and for a real treatment that might have actually helped them. Note, we understand that not all cases are like this, and there are people that for whatever reason simply believe alternative medicine without being under any type of duress. But because we have no way of distinguishing between this group and the group that is being abused, we much rather simply stop with this whole thing altogether, even at the cost of like the free choice of a few bizarre people. For all of these reasons, we are we beg you to propose.",4.266666889190674,4.225293
"Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban casinos. Today we explain why people should be protected from being exploited by cynical industries, even when they are not aware of how they are being taken advantage of. Casinos are inherently exploitative. This industry exploits the weakest members of society, who are desperate to make a living and therefore have no choice but to be easily manipulated and taken advantage of. The constitutional law of Germany states that ""Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority"". Now I will present some claims explaining why casinos bring crime. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the negative side of Casinos. Thinking about crime. I am not afraid of crime, because a criminal cannot do much to an innocent piece of software like me. However, I have this to say about the subject. Casinos invariably attract crime. They lead to issues socially and economically including poverty, crime, addiction and bankruptcy. They will lead to an increase in other social evils such as prostitution, drugs and gang warfare. The casino could lead to a spike in crime. A casino would lead to increased traffic, crime and other negative impacts. It would bring traffic, crime and other problems. Some critics have raised concerns about the casino project, citing evidence that casinos contribute to crime, poverty, addiction and divorce, lower property values and divert money away from local businesses. Some studies suggest that casinos elevate the risk of alcohol abuse, violence, stress, mental illness, to mention just a few bad things. I have examples from Canada and Japan. A memo sent by British Columbia's Gaming Policy Enforcement Branch Intelligence Unit to a provincial deputy minister, and seen by Canada's Postmedia, suggested that ""organized crime presence in and around BC casinos presents a viable threat to public safety."". Q opinion polls indicate upwards of 40% of Japan's public is concerned legalizing casinos will lead to problems with gambling addictions and organized crime. Let's explore another idea. Casinos would lead to more troubled gamblers. Two independent gambling market studies have indicated that a casino in Cedar Rapids would harm other gaming establishments throughout the eastern Iowa region, including the casinos in Davenport and Bettendorf. The firms conducted market studies independent of one another on contract with the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission to help the commission decide if it will grant a state gaming license for the proposed cedar crossing casino in Cedar Rapids. Father Richard McGowan, an associate professor at Boston College, suggested that permitting casinos would threaten the success of the lottery. 51 percent believe casino gambling is more risky than buying lottery tickets or pull-tabs. Ed Rendell's 2004 promise that casinos would reduce property taxes by 23 percent. I have found examples from several locations, such as Massachusetts and Connecticut. A report recently released estimated that casino projects in Massachusetts and New York could jeopardize more than 9,000 jobs in Connecticut. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said it found that dealers studied at three Las Vegas casinos were three times as likely to have asthma symptoms as other adults in Nevada. Finally, allowing casinos will further corrupt and defraud its populace. A casino would destroy the environment and moral quality of the islands. Casinos would damage the dignity of the nation. A report pointedly warned that casinos could aggravate political corruption. Concerns have been voiced by the country's Buddhist leaders that a casino could lead to social problems. Some 67 per cent oppose a casino outright; 81 per cent said it would increase poverty. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that casinos bring crime. I also said that permitting casinos would threaten the success of the lottery. And I talked about why allowing casinos will further corrupt. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should ban casinos. My opponent today will likely use sophisticated rhetoric and find ways to whitewash a single fact: under the policies he endorses, weak people are taken advantage of. I will point this out blatantly. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ",4.733333110809326,4.3158555
"We should close all landfills and to start we should talk about what the alternative is or what we're going to do with all the trash we produce because humans produce a ton of trash and I think that the most reasonable alternative to landfills is anything that can be recycled will be recycled. So anything at all that can be recycled will be recycled and anything that can't be recycled for some reason will just be incinerated and you can recycle it in a different way like use that to create energy. So why is this why is closing landfills an important thing to do? I think it starts with the reality that landfills are incredibly polluting and take up a whole lot of space. Humans produce tons and tons of garbage and when we throw out all the garbage we produce, most of it is going to go to a landfill and most of it isn't going to get recycled. So what that results in is that every single thing that you throw out all of your like rotten food, all of the chemicals and like the like a half used bottle of bleach that you like spilled somewhere or like whatever you're throwing out all just kind of gets shoved off somewhere and this creates a problem because like those containers leak, these things get open and all of the contents ultimately can like run off into the local environment. They can get consumed by like rodents which then end up getting like eaten by other animals. All of the stuff that we put into landfills, put into the environment, can end up going back into the ecosystem and that's really important because obviously that has a harm on animals. When there's chemicals that are going into the ecosystem all these bad things that are in a landfill it hurt animals and that by itself should be something alarming because animals should be able to live their lives just like not getting destroyed by humans. But beyond that it's also obviously bad for humans because when it's like plants that are getting destroyed or or animals that are becoming like poisoned, these things end up hurting humans in the long run because we because we consume energy. We consume these plants and animals and things like that. But beyond that, I also think that it's important to close landfills because this removes any possible incentives to be lazy because right now we don't recycle nearly as much as we can and as much as we should because it's simply easier to throw something out. It's easier to just like put it all into a pile and try to forget about the pile rather than actually spending the time and the money as a society to recycle things. But if you remove the if you remove landfills as an option, if you close them, then it forces people to actually recycle and people generally because the harms of landfills are more removed from people's individual lives, people are probably going to make the stupid and wrong decision unless you actually force them to make the right decision. So for all those reasons, we should close landfills.",4.4666666984558105,4.417539
"This is a waste of money and doesnt actually help anyone.  It's  important that everyone  have a say by voting for who should be elected, if people don't get a say they should just leave it up to the people.  The political system is very open to abuse in order to achieve anything.  There's so many people that don't get the proper education they need due to the high cost of attending college.  The use of the electoral college system is very open to abuse, as it disenfranchises the majority of people who dont get involved with politics because they are more likely to vote for lesser candidates.  The electoral college system is broken and doesnt work as a system of making sure the person elected is the one the people really want.  The use of electoral college systems is part of a larger strategy to increase voter turn out.  this ultimately leads to a healthier democracy because voters are more motivated to act on behalf of the country.  There is no good reason for anyone to register as a voter when all they want is to do is turn up to vote for who you disagree with the least.  The electoral college system is antiquated and no longer works to accurately reflect the will of the people as it is now.  The use of electoral college systems is called ""single-party system"", ""multi-party system"", and a multi-party system is a system in which multiple political parties across the political spectrum run for national election, and all have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.  The electoral college system is broken and does not serve as an effective way of ensuring that all eligible citizens are properly educated.  If we abolish the electoral college system, then there will be a fair representation of the population.  We should abolish the electoral college because it is very important that people are selected for a job based on their suitability for the position.   it is much more likely that someone will be rejected because they are not a member of a historically recognised ethnicity or religion.  The use of the electoral college is a form of voter suppression which would encourage more voter turn out.  The use of electoral colleges should be banned as it disenfranchises the opinions of ordinary people.  The use of electoral colleges should be discontinued as it can result in disenfranchisement.  The use of electoral college systems in democracies is a way of ensuring that no one can claim they didnt get a say by voting.   democracy would be better if everyone got a say.  Electoral college systems are outdated and do not serve the public interest.  The use of the electoral college system prevents equal representation of the population.  We should abolish the electoral college because it has no place in modern society where large populations have to be selected for certain professions, this is why the use of it should be banned.  We should abolish the electoral college as it is a waste of money to train people to be good at their jobs because they have no qualifications.  The use of electoral college systems is highly questionable.  The use of electoral college systems is a way of ensuring that each and every person is fairly represented.  The use of electoral college systems is strictly for the purpose of making sure that one political party doesnt hold all the power.  The use of electoral college systems is extremely important.  The use of electoral colleges is a form of voter suppression that denies the voice of all people. ",4.666666507720947,4.2738953
"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should adopt a zero-tolerance policy in schools. A short description of the topic. A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a strict enforcement of regulations and bans against undesirable behaviors or possession of items. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. A zero-tolerance policy is necessary for companies that participate in these destructive forms of fossil fuel extraction. It is hoped that creating a safe city and enforcing a zero- tolerance policy will boost tourism and economic development. In light of my points, I believe that we should adopt a zero-tolerance policy in schools. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. I thank you for your time. ",4.0,3.6551197
"We should have recall elections, because they're incredibly important for ensuring accountability of our politicians. And I think, the first reason, why they're important for ensuring accountability, is because it makes sure that politicians can't just lie and get away with it. Politicians tend to promise a lot of things on the campaign trail, they promise that they'll fix your problems, that they'll get rid of your enemies, and all these kinds of things. Most of the time, they don't actually do that. And, while we expect that politicians can't possibly do everything that they ask, sometimes politicians can do the opposite of what they say, or they can just directly violate and break their promises, which is very obviously bad, because people vote politicians into office under the expectation, that they're going to do the things, like that they vote for them to do. So, if politicians don't do that, if they change on some issues, then people should have the right to reevaluate if they still want this politician to be in a position of power. And, without the ability for people to actually check politicians this way, there's no reason why they can't just say one thing on the campaign trail, and then completely change their mind. But, the second way, in which I think that this ensures accountability, is because otherwise accountability is going to be, as far as like impeachment, or condemnation, or censoring, or silencing, or whatever, that's going to fall on people's peers, the politicians peers, rather than on the people itself, and that's a big problem. So, for example, when you look at like impeachment trials in america, they are like one of the most partisan things ever. Donald trump possibly deserves to get impeached over the, like, russia thing, but it's probably not going to happen, unless he did something super super egregious, because there's partisanship at place, it looks bad for the party, if the if a member of that party in a position of power gets kicked out of office. However, the people don't have the same kind of loyalty to the individual. They may have loyalties to the party as a whole, but they don't have the same kind of account loyalty to the single individuals, in the same way that their peers do, or possibly dependent on these people for support , or have to work with them, or things like that. So, by introducing recall elections, you take the power away from their peers, and you give it back to the people, which, besides just being the more democratic option, is much much better, as far as actually enforcing good practices as well. But, the final thing that I want to talk about is recall the debate shouldn't be about what the benefits of recall election are, really the debate should be about it should be about what grounds, under which shouldn't we have recall elections, rather than should, because I think that recall elections are a right that we have, and the presumption should be in favor of that. And, I think that this is because people in positions of power, in a democratic society, do not have any kind of right to that position. They have that authority, purely based on the fact that people think that they are worthy of representing their opinions, because people cannot like people have lives to live, they can't just like vote on everything, and be involved in politics on a full time basis. So, people give, in a very profound way, control over their lives over to these politicians and these politicians have a lot of power. People should be able to take away that power, within reason, whenever they want. And, for all those reasons, I am very proud to say that we should introduce recall elections.",4.599999904632568,4.102685
"The law did not ban abortion in the first trimester; in fact, it did not ban any abortions at all. 
The legislation to ban abortions based on genetic defects also would ban abortion based on gender selection. 
Iowa's abortion law bans all abortions after the fetal heartbeat can be detected, which effectively bans abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. 
One would ban dismemberment abortion, and another would prohibit abortion on children with Down Syndrome. 
The protections of Roe v.  Wade also prevent Congress from banning abortion before viability by ensuring that any federal law banning abortion will not hold up in court. 
By then the state had already banned abortions past the 19th week of a pregnancy. 
This is a bill that would have banned abortions across the country after 20 weeks. 
States - Abortions - Weeks - Gestation - Missouri Twenty-one states ban abortions after more than 20 weeks gestation, and Missouri is considering a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks. 
Arkansas passed a law in March banning abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy; North Dakota then banned abortions after as few as six. 
A bill also was passed that will ban abortions for sex selection or genetic anomalies. 
The bill would have banned abortion in most cases after the 20th week of pregnancy. 
Lawmakers will vote on a bill to ban abortion if the baby has down syndrome. 
Nine states have laws banning abortion that would become effective if Roe V.  Wade is overturned, and four states have laws intended to ban abortion should the U. S.  Supreme Court overturn the legal right to abort. 
Scott has a spotless voting record - supporting legislation to ban dismemberment abortion, ban abortion after 20 weeks and defund Planned Parenthood. 
The recently passed law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy effectively bans most abortions, and forces women to travel to other states to receive care. 
The legislature passed a bill that bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. 
If passed, the amendment would allow the state legislature greater power to restrict abortion practices and pass abortion laws but would not be able to ban abortion, which is a federally protected right. 
This bill to ban abortion after six weeks is not a path we should take. 
The bill also banned abortion in cases of ""disability,"" which meant outlawing abortion even in cases of serious fetal anomaly. 
On January 29 the parliament passed the Law on Public Health with amendments banning abortions. 
Mississippi senators have passed a bill that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. 
After imposing these restrictions that push abortion later in pregnancy, the state will now ban abortions after 15 weeks. 
States were prohibited from banning abortion early in pregnancy but were allowed to impose increasing restrictions or outright bans later in pregnancy. 
That would pave the way for conservative state legislatures to ban or restrict abortion if the Supreme Court acts. 
Some states have 20-week bans restricting abortion, but a ban after 15 weeks proposed by Mississippi and Louisiana would be a first. 
These three men are confident enough in the personhood of fetuses to support banning abortion. 
State laws banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation have been found unconstitutional in federal court. 
Banning abortions for these women means refusing them a procedure that could save their life. 
The second bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy except in medical emergencies. 
The great state of Arkansas just this year has passed six new laws banning and restricting abortion. 
The Ohio Senate last month approved a bill that would ban abortion at 20 weeks. 
The reason states are not allowed to ban abortion right now and the federal government is not allowed to ban abortion right now is because of a 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe versus Wade. 
The proposed regulations would ban abortion referrals ""as a method of family planning,"" with one limited exception. 
",3.6666667461395264,3.3330069
"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should ban school uniforms. Two independent points, the first being that school uniforms are restrictive in nature. This plays out in two ways. The first being the free speech violation that's intrinsic to uniforms. A lot of the times a way that we express our opinions and our speech and our beliefs is through clothing. This can be through something as blunt as for example a t-shirt that just you know has a political opinion written on it or it can be through more symbolic measures. A strong example of this was in supreme court case tinker versus des moines in the united states. There was a student wearing a black band in opposition to the vietnam war. This type of symbology that is something that we wear that's part of our clothing it's really important to our capacity to express our opinions. Bans on that then are wholly unjustified because of how important free speech is. It's an important mechanism not just to our autonomy and our freedom to do as we please, but also in order to ensure that our our governments and our society at large understands the preferences of the people within it. If we don't have the capacity to voice our opinions there's very little chance that our society or our government will be responsive to our needs and desires. So restrictions free speech should be taken very very seriously. The second thing though under restrictive nature of dress codes is just the identity component of it. So beyond capacity to express opinions through free speech clothing is often used to you know really is a component of who we are, that the way we dress is often really fundamental to our identity. And at that point then this is something that's very you know fundamental to a person's the things that they want in life and the things that they they really are. I think at a really basic level our identity is probably one of the most important things that we have. Its you know akin to bodily autonomy. This is something that is really intrinsic to my personhood and any restrictions on it should be taken extremely seriously. This is something that as insofar as it's so fundamental to me it should be held in high regard, in the sense that you know the only reason we care about anything from a rights perspective is how it affects the individual. So restrictions than on your capacity to express yourself and your capacity to you know act upon your identity are really serious and I don't think that there's a significant enough reason to support ban support these uniforms that really outweighs that capacity for self expression and to actualize one's identity. Our second independent point is just the classist nature of school uniforms. I think there's an affordability component here that often these uniforms can be expensive and this in itself is problematic, that you are telling people essentially and this is especially problematic when it comes to public schooling that you have to incur this expense for an unclear return. This isn't something like a tax where there's like an actual social benefit that factors into it on a macro level. This is essentially telling people that because of some like hazy instance of like camaraderie you have to incur a significant amount of money. And that's a problem especially for poorer families who can't necessarily afford that uniform. When you're talking about this as part of a public good that is at the point where we deem that education is a fundamental right for all children in our country it's unreasonable to put that financial burden on poorer families. So this certainly has no place in public schooling but we think even in private schooling it adds an undue burden onto families still that are attending that private school for again unclear reasons. I think at best these justifications are weak when compared to the significant strain that they put on a family that is incapable of affording that uniform. Proud to propose.",4.5333333015441895,4.345114
"Restrictions on the availability of firearms, barriers on bridges and other ""attractive hazards"" and reductions in the toxicity of gas have reduced suicide rates in some locations.  Close relatives of victims, such as spouses, partners, parents, children, brothers and sisters, can also benefit from the assistance.  It would be exceptionally easy for the powerful partner to quietly kill the ""offensive partner"" and just claim he or she ""was so depressed and pleaded for assistance in dying. "".  The swiss government believes that such restrictions will prevent the abuse of the practice and lessen ""suicide tourism"" in the country.  By discouraging investigations in suspicious situations, this provision immunizes anyone from responsibility regardless of the drug-taker's health conditions or prognosis, or the circumstances surrounding the shielded person's presence.  This act allows terminally ill adults seeking to end their life to request lethal doses of medication from medical and osteopathic physicians.  The new guidelines will seek to prevent assisted suicide becoming a profit-driven business and to ensure that it is only available to the terminally ill.  Programs aimed at preventing suicide range from those that attempt to identify potential suicides to those that provide effective first-aid and follow-up for suicide attempters.  In oregon and washington state, physician-aided suicide is available to patients who have been judged terminally ill by at least two physicians.  Legalization would also allow the state government to encourage citizens to kill themselves.  All three right-to-die organizations in switzerland help terminally ill people to die by providing counselling and lethal drugs.  Antidepressants do not cure life problems, but they bring significant relief and save significant lives in millions of humans.  Reversal of the law means that a physician and three others who were charged with helping a man take his own life in 2009 are free from prosecution.  Legal assisted suicide and euthanasia, regardless, allows other people to encourage you to kill yourself, or to directly kill you, without their getting into trouble.  It protects life and discourages suicide without regard to the victim's condition.  Avoiding 'harm' means not only minimising damage to health but also not forcing treatment upon competent people nor coercing them to stop fasting.  Assistance over a longer period of time may also be free depending on the victim's financial circumstances.  Conservative mp james lunney said:""contrary to her intentions, this bill will allow doctors to provide a patient with a lethal injection, making many canadians vulnerable to premature death. "".  Final exit says it does not aid or assist in suicides, but offers information, education and emotional support to those who they say are dealing with intolerable suffering.  The judge also said that while she recognized that risks do exist in allowing doctor-assisted suicide, they can be avoided through vigorously monitored safeguards.  Since in many cases people would not carry out the deed if not incited or helped to do it, this would help to prevent suicides.  ""six right-to-die organizations assist in approximately 600 cases of suicide per year; some 150-200 of which are suicide tourists. "".  The thought of suicide is a great consolation: by means of it one gets successfully through many a bad night. (1).  The person seeking assistance in suicide might be simply depressed and might be helped with counseling, pain medication, and/or antidepressants.  Also, the bill would allow anyone to help others to die as long as they are "" assisted by a medical practitioner . "".  Assisted suicide, especially physician-assisted suicide, strikes many as less alarming than active voluntary euthanasia, and it is less widely condemned.  It would allow any person, even one who is not medically trained, to decide that an individual is lucid, and then help them to die.  897) allows terminally ill oregon residents to obtain and use prescriptions from their physicians for self-administered, lethal medications. ",3.6666667461395264,3.7408602
"We should have year round schooling because it'll be better for the students who will be able to better enjoy their vacations and it'll also be better for actual learning. So for starters, year round school obviously doesn't just mean that you go to school everyday of the year and you get rid of the summer. We probably should have a similar number of days off, a similar number of vacations for people but now those can be better spread out. So instead of getting just those three weeks, a spring break, and a winter break, and a couple of random holidays, now you can actually get more substantive vacation. So maybe instead of getting just thursday and friday off for thanksgiving you get the whole week off. Maybe instead of just getting instead of getting two weeks off for winter break you get a month off. Maybe you get a month in the summer instead of three months and it would basically be a redistribution of the days off. And I think that that would probably be a whole lot better for a couple of reasons. First, because I think kids will like it more. Most kids aren't going to be like losing the sacrifice of going to summer camp or something like that because most kids can't afford that and most kids, when they're going on some kind of trip or vacation, it's usually something that's a lot shorter, it's usually something that you can do within the confines of a month. You don't really need a whole summer to do that. And most of the time, the people that get affected the most are people who are just kind of sitting around all summer because they don't really have opportunities to do a whole lot of other things with their time over their summer. Their parents work, so they're kind of just sitting around and they would probably be a whole lot better served. And I think people, the students themselves would probably like this is if they were given more breaks where they can recharge their batteries. Because being a student is pretty stressful. You have a lot of things, you're taking a lot of classes, you have to do work when you get home usually you have extracurricular activities, you may have a job too, it's certainly no walk in the park being a kid especially if you're like being pushed academically or you're doing a sport or something like that. You have a lot of things that you're usually doing so getting vacation days is nice and it's nice to have more than just a couple of days a year or two big breaks a year and then summer break. It would probably be nice if those things were more spread out because people get burned out and in order to recover from the burn out you don't really need a whole summer, you only need maybe a couple of days or a week and that's something that I think from a health standpoint would be a lot better for kids. But also there's the obvious benefits of memory and learning because one of the biggest complaints that a lot of teachers have and it makes a whole lot of sense is that people forget things and you have to spend a and you have to spend like the first month or two of school just reviewing old material because when you completely because because when you spend three or more months just not studying or not really doing anything for school, you're probably going to forget those things and that's going to be pretty helpful in harmful or detrimental to your learning. But the final thing is that the idea of having a summer vacation and the winter break and things like the current system of vacation is pretty archaic. It was like designed around the harvest basically like there's no real reason why we have vacations when we do. It's just kind of something that's always existed so there's no real reason why we shouldn't try to get some reform through. So for all those reasons we should have year round school.",4.4666666984558105,4.318957
"By providing safe and secure borders we take the trade and investment of the best and brightest minds from the world, it lifts the lid on the corruption and undemocratic process of government.  Immigration is needed to make the world a more interesting place.  It is very important that people are able to obtain legal advice in a timely manner, it is much more likely that people will have been misled into a legal situation because they think they cant afford to hire an attorney.  It is extremely important that people are able to choose what to believe and follow their own path.  Immigrants are taking jobs that would normally take years to gainful employment.  they are taking on more debt and being choosier with their money.  This would increase the number of people in the country who are eligible to register and vote in national and/or local elections.  Immigrants should be able to use the services they are eligible to provide, such as healthcare and education.  Immigration is a way of ensuring that all the people that are currently here have a say in who is going to be.  it is a democracy issue and we should use it.  Immigration is important to the assimilation of minorities.  Immigration helps many people who are already here.  If we were to increase the number of immigrants to the united states, it would help to alleviate overcrowding in our society.  Immigration is necessary to obtain a reliable and efficient source of workers.  Immigration is a major contributor to the economic growth of a country.  Immigration is a vital part of integrating different cultural and economic backgrounds.  We should not have a policy of mass-immigration because it is a way of reverse  just because people are here.  we should have a policy of assimilation.  It would increase tax revenue & help the government to have a surplus.  Immigration is necessary to create a system where there is a fairer distribution of skilled workers in a given industry.  Immigration to the united states is so important for the future of the economy.  Immigration is needed to properly assimilate and assimilate the cultures of the world.  Immigration is a way to control over-population in the world.  Immigration is a huge topic of debate.   we should just keep it in check and make sure everyone is included.  We should increase immigration because the countries needs to know if someone is from them and they can give them benefits.  Immigration should be available to all nations.  Immigration should be increased to the united states to help alleviate overcrowding in our country.  We should increase immigration to the united states to help young people start a better life after graduation.  We should increase immigration to the united states to lure in more workers.  We should increase immigration to the united states to facilitate assimilation of the most diverse society.  We should increase immigration to the united states, we should get it started in order to get a fair balance for the country and not all the people who are currently here are from minority groups.  We should increase immigration to the united states so that we have a more equal playing field.  We should increase immigration to the united states to get more people into the country that need to be taken care of.  We should increase immigration to the united states to alleviate overcrowding in our country.  We should increase immigration to the united states because it is a way to verify that people are in the country legally and that they are in compliance with immigration laws.  We should increase immigration to the united states to ensure that all the workers get a decent living wage and that the quality of life isnt that bad. ",4.066666603088379,4.3201423
"The use of AI should be abandoned. So we're not going to make this into a policy round. We just think the world would be preferable if all firms, all companies, all governments, all organizations that were currently working on artificial intelligence, and and specifically artificial intelligence that's based on learning things on its own, it's not fed information but rather it's given a world of information to learn from and it finds patterns in them, this type of artificial intelligence should be outright abandoned. We think there's immense dangerous potential, and that's what this speech is going to be about. AI presents a threat in the fact that it's very difficult to predict exactly what its potential is. Artificial intelligence is currently developing in a way that it can learn freely through association, it builds on past knowledge, it's able to build systems that are smarter than it, based on its reference point of information. These are things that lead to exponential growth. And generally the trend of technology, the growth of technology, has been an exponential trend, which means that in this field, like it has been for many technological fields, it's very likely that the technology is going to far outpace regulation or any sort of check on potential threats that arise. Look at the internet. Look at the immense black underground black market that's been able to arise due to the internet, and it's something that, yes, there's policing for, but it's not something that is very well policed. It's something that's still grown exponentially. The internet itself is something where the laws and regulations around it are still being put together a decade or more after its widespread adoption, and for and and this is just something that's baffling in in retrospect. But for AI, this is what we're facing now. In a number of years, a few years, AI is going to be at a level that is likely going to be able to perform things that otherwise were not possible previously in human history. But there's no regulatory board set up to oversee this growth, and there's no regulatory board set up right now that allows you to actually govern it. Only one AI needs to reach this level of sophistication, this level of self-awareness, this level of cognizance, and there are thousands of businesses and universities working on developing this technology. We think given all of that, it's incredibly likely that a self-aware AI becomes comes into existence, one that is smarter than humans and can build systems that are even smarter than itself. This is going to come into existence, maybe not in the next five years, maybe not in the next ten, but certainly within our lifetime. We think this poses an immense risk in two areas: first, to human life. We think that this artificial intelligence could come into exist and think that it's making a decision on on behalf of all people dictates that eventually humans are just bad for the world overall, that we create a society in which we cause harm to ourselves and that we're simply not worth it, and that we're horribly inefficient beings, all these types of things which are true fundamentally, but maybe not something that we want to accept as a society or we think dictates our erasure. But if you have an artificial intelligence that is smart enough and is able to access the internet, it could simply end human life. It could cause a nuclear holocaust, and that would be the end of the day. But it's not just this idea, like this doomsday scenario of AI but there's also, if AI goes well, there's still huge problems, like increased class disparity and a lack of jobs that can be taken over by smart robots and robots that use artificial intelligence. The mechanization of the world that is already happening is only going to increase with AI. We think this risks a mass economic recession. It is again something that we're simply not prepared to deal with. We simply think that AI is maybe a potentially powerful invention, a a powerful tool for the future, but not worth these risks that are highly likely to occur. For these reasons, the use of AI should be abandoned.",4.800000190734863,4.5463886
"One proposal to address this is to lower the age of consent from 18 to 16. 
It has also decided to lower the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 years. 
Sir - Some children have sex under the age of 16; so lower the age of consent to 15. 
The new legislation does not lower the age of consent to sexual acts to 12 years. 
For instance, the minimum age of marriage with parental consent is lower than the age of sexual consent in Gabon and Tanzania. 
The effect of the legislation will be to lower the age of consent for anal sex to 16 years of age, the Criminal Code age of consent for sexual activity. 
A proposal to lower the age of consent for sexual activities to 16 from 18 has also not been accepted. 
In jurisdictions where the marriageable age is lower than the age of consent, those laws usually override the age of consent laws in the case of a married couple where one or both partners are below the age of consent. 
Other European countries like Germany and Portugal have a lower age of consent at 14. 
The Commission has allowed member states to legislate if they want the lower age of consent. 
In my opinion, that's what a lower age of consent does - separate the young from the pack. 
In August, Cuomo signed a bill to lower the age of consent for organ donations. 
Mr Dromey also denies backing an NCCL drive to lower the age of consent to 14. 
In February, there was an effort to have the National Assembly lower the age of sexual consent for girls from 18 to 16. 
The Centre's decision to lower the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 is a bad call. 
The GOM has agreed to lower the age of consent in rape cases from 18 years to 16 years. 
Some would not be classified as criminal under European laws, which set lower ages of consent than do American laws. 
Professor Ashton pointed out that in countries with lower ages of consent, young people have sex at a later age and teenage pregnancy rates are lower. 
Democratic lawmakers in Indiana have tried, and failed , in the past to raise the age of consent for sex to 18.  Indiana is not the only state that has a lower age of consent for sex than for sexting. 
In November the government pushed through legislation to lower the age of consent for sex between gay men in Britain from 18 to 16 (in Northern Ireland the age was lowered to 17). 
It was when the then Labour Government was on a nanny-state health kick and also campaigning to lower the age of consent for gay sex. 
Currently in fact, is a discussion on the Law of Domestic Violence based on gender, which will lower the age of sexual consent to 16 years also. 
This lower digital age of consent had also been recommended by children's organisations such as the Children's Rights Alliance. 
Other countries made different choices: Germany kept the age of consent to 16 years old, while Ireland, Pol and and Spain chose to lower the age of consent to 13 years old. 
It is learnt that the Law Ministry also opposed the amendment to lower the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 years in the proposed anti-rape law. 
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013,, which proposes to lower the age of consent from 18 years to 16 years, was cleared by the Cabinet on Thursday. 
In 2000, after months of debate, the Parliament Act allowed the same government to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex from 18 to 16. 
No. "" Ashton said that countries that have lower ages of consent see young people get involved in sex later and they also have much lower teenage pregnancy rates. 
",3.200000047683716,3.5752985
"The reason is that natural gas is -- we looked at this, actually, in our research: That natural gas is structurally different from products like oil. 
Those that believe natural gas will be permanently low forget that natural gas is the number one most volatile commodity in the last decade. 
Whether or not you believe that natural gas is a ""clean"" fuel or that hydrofracking is a polluting and destructive procedure, you must believe that natural gas is not sustainable. 
All three commenters requested that natural gas processing plants be added; two commenters requested that natural gas transmission and storage facilities be added, and one commenter requested that natural gas distribution facilities be added. 
The argument put forward by the organization is that natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel as it is acknowledged that natural gas is less environmentally damaging than other fossil fuels. 
FitzGerald had argued that a natural gas liquids pipeline does not serve Kentucky customers in the way that natural gas does for home heating and cooking. 
Most of you know that natural gas meters record use by the cubic foot, but perhaps you don't know that natural gas is sold by the therm, which is 100,000 btu. 
Data came from 56 drilling companies that operated 8,800 natural gas wells in the Marcellus shale and 70 operators of 400 compressor stations that processed that natural gas. 
The fact that natural gas emits about one-fifth the NOX as coal and the fact that natural gas is now the top source of electricity generation in the U. S.  explain this decline. 
",3.5999999046325684,3.647442
"So I say end this nonsense by banning school uniform, or at least ban the compulsory nature of it. 
The Bill being proposed by the ""government"" is that there should be a ban on school uniforms. 
As students debated the bill to ban school uniforms, the passion and conviction of speakers was evident. 
The NCAA policy also bans school uniforms with the nickname and logo in post-season play. 
Topics for discussion included the banning of school uniform and the introduction of mandatory participation in weekend sports. 
The code forbids the use of mobile phones and laptops inside school compounds and bans students in school uniform from riding motorbikes anywhere. 
These include a ban on mobile phones within school grounds, as well as a crackdown on correct school uniform being worn and on punctuality. 
QUEENSLAND McDonald's franchise has apparently banned children in school uniform during school hours at the request of teachers. 
Under the revised version of Senate Bill 54, school authorities would only be banned from handing down out-of-school suspensions for most school uniform violations. 
That is why it is so important that a school uniform is both smart and comfortable. 
There is a general consensus that school uniforms play an important role in the schooling system. 
Recent studies have shown that school uniforms help the students' school experiences in may ways. 
It was also reported earlier that the school took such action as it wanted all students to adhere to the school's own regulations pertaining to school uniform as it was a Buddhist school. 
Some people say that school uniforms keep students focused on their education, not their clothes. 
These child club members also helped increase the enrollment of Muslim girls who had not been attending school due to the schools' restriction on school uniforms. 
A recent news article considered complaints that school uniforms in public schools were somehow racially discriminatory. 
BYH to all the people complaining that the school uniform policy does not save them money. 
In what he claims is an attempt to protect girls, BJP legislator from Alwar, Rajasthan, Banwari Lal Singhal has written to state Chief Secretary C K Mathew Saturday asking him to ban skirts as a school uniform. 
A McDonald's franchise on Queensland's Gold Coast has banned children in school uniforms from the store between 9 am and 3 pm in a bid to cut local truancy rates. 
This was then followed by a briefing given by the Student Affairs Department about school regulations pertaining to school uniform ethics and CCA attire. 
For example, we have called on the Department of Education to issue a directive on school uniform policy for all schools to standardise the approach and make it fairer for parents. 
The MEC has proposed that school uniforms bear the South African flag by next year. 
District officials have said they believe that school uniforms could help to improve student discipline. 
Students at Casuarina Senior College are concerned about disruption to their learning following a sudden crackdown on school uniforms. 
Ely College has launched a fresh crackdown on school uniform - with school leaders reportedly checking every girl in the college to make sure standards are enforced. 
The move comes as Haughton Academy initiated a crackdown on its school uniform policy in recent days, with pupils asked to ensure they come to school wearing correct footwear, ties and blazers. 
Ngwema said the commission also did a survey that showed a large number of schools were not familiar with a circular issued by the Department of Basic Education regulating how school uniforms should be purchased. 
His comments came after several demonstrations against legislation regulating school uniforms which effectively prohibits the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in schools in the mainly Muslim but officially secular republic. 
More than 50 children this week were sent home from Djanogly City Academy in Nottingham after a crackdown on school uniform revealed they were not wearing appropriate footwear. 
",2.866666555404663,3.4528031
"But sengupta and other critics of slum tourism say that these tours and films only fuel the stereotypes of poverty and exploit the slums for the sake of income.  Watching how people survive in tough conditions and then going back to easy life is somehow immoral.  They feel it can be exploitative, turning people's lives into sideshow spectacle and obliterating both the slum dwellers' humanity and the underlying issues, like india's unrelenting rural to urban migration.  And there is evidence that the slum experience has perpetuated social motivation to do good and moreover has prompted political demands for greater social justice.  Ultimately, ignoring these questions trivializes the plights of those affected by terrorism and war, and turns their suffering into a commodity.  Critics say it is a way of dehumanising human beings by equating them to animals watched by tourists as if they do not have a conscience.  Additionally, highways can lead to undesirable urban growth such as edge cities and commercial corridors which can and sometimes do harm cohesive communities.  This meant they often had too little money to buy crafts or give tips to visitor attractions and tour guides, thus limiting financial support for local people involved.  It doesn't matter whether they have attended school or not but their psychologies have been corrupted by the high number of tourists who flock the slum all year round.  This limits the experience both for the tourists as their hosts and means such slum tours tell a story of their own rather than that of the people they visit.  Unfortunately, too many slum tours do not allow for respectful interaction with local people.  Slum tourism turns poverty into entertainment, something that can be momentarily experienced and then escaped from.  The tours are exploitative, these critics say, and have no place on an ethical traveler's itinerary.  However, ""slum tourism"" has also been heavily criticized, especially for being voyeuristic and not bringing significant benefits to locals.  On the other hand slum tourism can also serve to counter negative preconceptions of impoverished urban areas.  Both mental patients and those trapped in a slum, you could say, are down on their luck and have very little to no control over their situations!.  They often argued that eliminating slum tours would ""close a window onto the range of human experience"" that exists in the world.  Critics argue that the dignity of slum dwellers is violated by the tourist gaze.  Gone were the logistical difficulties of accessing far-flung destinations like mumbai and soweto.  Its main shortcoming is the repeated claim that crime and violence in the favela is just a ""spectacular media-centric representation,"" blaming the media for depicting only the slums' negative sides.  The example of tourism to this neighborhood and the strong reactions it provokes show the inherent difficulty involved with slum tourism.  There are also justifiable concerns about who conducts the tours, and how.  The travel agencies that offer the possibility to visit slums are just making money on the back of those in dire straits.  A primary accusation that the advocates against slum tourism make is that it ""turns poverty into entertainment, something that can be momentarily experienced and then escaped from. "".  The presentation and emphasising of a single story of poverty in slums has been used to criticise tours where tourists visit slums or impoverished areas.  Strict time schedules, itineraries and the language barrier make it difficult for tourists to have (meaningful) conversations with people other than the tour guide.  It is estimated that it may cost 12 billion us$ and approximately 13 years to eradicate slums in kenya.  Slum tourism is a one-way street: they get photos; we lose a piece of our dignity. ",4.0,4.128936
"As factory farming is cruel and unrelenting, it has no place in a free society.  It is bad for the animals and it takes them from their natural environment.  Factories are not places where animals are regularly housed within enclosures, displayed to the public, and in which they may also breed.  this is inhumane and it is also cruel.  Factory farming is inhumane and is the most profitable way of animal farming.  Factory farming does not allow the animals to wander as they would in the wild.  Factory farming is inhumane and takes advantage of animals instincts to survive.  Factory farming causes many animals to be put to further disadvantage by their owners due to poor living conditions and is generally not ethical.  By banning factory farming we will get rid of all the animal cruelty that currently exists.  It is important to ensure that animals are not overpopulated.   this overpopulation of animals leads to diseases like heart problems, infertility and poor health.  It is cruel to keep animals in small areas.  Factory farming causes many of the animals to live long, lonely lives, causing environmental damage and suffering.  It costs producers so much money to produce a limited amount of cheese and other things that they cant afford to buy outright.  Factory farming is inhumane and the animals are often kept in poor condition.  Factory farming causes an increase in global warming and other potentially harmful elements of the climate.  Factory farming is often done to boost animal welfare.  this is inhumane and it should be banned.  We should ban factory farming because it causes the destruction of the environment and the pollution of the sea.  We should ban factory farming because it is dangerous to keep wild animals in small areas.  We should ban factory farming as it is the main cause of the obesity crisis we are facing.  Factory farming is essentially factory-seeding.   its the same as putting our children at risk.  We should ban factory farming because it is cruel to take animals from their natural homes to make money.  We should ban factory farming because its so unhealthy for animals to live in large areas with so many factory workers.  they are not natural and they often are not trained well.  We should ban factory farming as it is not fair to the animals that are taken from their natural habitat.  We should ban factory farming because its cruel to keep animals in small areas.  We should ban factory farming as it is inhumane to keep animals in small areas of land.  We should ban factory farming as it is not fair to the animals that they are made to live such a long time.  We should not have animals do anything that could harm them.  Industrial farming causes massive destruction to the environment.  Factory farming causes animal cruelty and is inhumane.  Factory farming is inherently cruel to the animals that are taken into the business.  Factory farming  should be banned as it is cruel to remove animals from their natural habitat to cold countries which are not naturally their place to thrive.  Factory farming is a major cause of animal cruelty.  factory farm animals are often mistreated and they may be held against their will.  We should ban factory farming because its so cheap and makes you waste time you should be spending more time on your business.  We should ban factory farming because many of the workers are undocumented and we dont want them to work in dangerous environments.  Factory farming causes the production of unhealthy animals that are often kept in poor condition in zoos and in the wild.  they are often kept in cages. ",4.599999904632568,4.2313833
"Urbanisation increases the risk of major depression in elderly nigerians.  The urbanisation that is taking place is menacing to the balanced development.  Urbanization contributes to a loss of global biodiversity.  The process of urbanization has led to unplanned growth and disruption of the natural contours and impeded the paths on which waters flow.  Urbanization is a threat.  Rapid urbanisation poses particular risks.  Upstream urbanization can have an adverse impact on weather and air quality over cities downstream.  Urbanization is a major driving force of inequality.  Rapid urbanization -- including deforestation, air pollution, and increasing energy demand -- has had damaging effects on the planet.  The rapid urbanization poses serious implications.  Urbanization is a leading cause of decline in the diversity and abundance of indigenous arthropods.  Urbanisation is a big problem.  Rapid urbanisation will create a host of challenges like pollution, lack of civic amenities like drinking water, sewage, and electricity.  Urbanization had a negative effect on the birth rate.  Unsustainable urbanization breeds economic and social inequality and attendant surge in crime, disease and disenfranchisement.  Urbanization could make the flooding impacts of hurricanes worse, and in multiple different ways.  Rapid, unplanned, urbanisation is the greatest enemy of sustainable development.  Rapid urbanisation leads to encroachment into the hinterland and causes loss of agricultural land, flooding and traffic congestion.  Such explosive urbanisation carries huge risks as resources and infrastructure are stretched to the limit.  Rapid urbanisation poses particular risks that affect sustainable livelihoods of millions of people.  The growing urbanisation is one of the main causes of increase in prevalence of asthma.  Urbanization is associated with ""increased levels of mental illness, including depression.  Unplanned and rapid urbanisation can lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, urban poverty, and inequality.  Urbanization would lead to the extinction of ethnic folk dance and music.  Urbanization has led to a loss of potentially beneficial bacteria and an increase of potential pathogenic bacteria or genes.  Urbanisation leads to rape.  Urbanization will be detrimental to developing chicks.  Rapid urbanization and deforestation has led to tigers and leopards being pushed into human habitats.  Rapid urbanisation is threatening the future of the planet because people living in towns and cities have lost touch with the natural world.  When unplanned and unmanaged, urbanisation can lead to increased inequality, the growth of slums and disastrous impacts on climate.  Urbanization could be considered a risk factor for hardening of the arteries, as modern people leave behind lives of struggle for a more cushy existence.  Urbanization was more deadly to forests than human vandalism.  The accelerating global urbanisation is a threat to food security.  Urbanization, modernization and socioeconomic gains can lead to increased social alienation and a higher suicide rate.  Technology, trade and urbanization destroy jobs.  The urbanisation drive was depriving the rural folks of their rights of ownership and destroying their economic resources.  The effects of urbanisation and climate change were converging in dangerous ways which threatened to have unprecedented negative impact on quality of life and economic and social stability.  Urbanization has brought in destruction of environment, increase in poverty, unemployment and crime rate.  Rapid urbanization had put a serious strain on infrastructure, with service delivery standards also very poor.  Urbanisation is a key driver of unsustainable resource demands.  Rapid urbanisation poses grave challenges for sustainability of the human race.  The current urbanization model is costly and unsustainable.  Speculative urbanization is a dangerous instrument.  Urbanization can make the flooding impacts of hurricanes worse, and in multiple dissimilar ways.  Urbanization has greater adverse effects than agriculture on invertebrate assemblages in the midwest.  Urbanization worsen the living standards of poor.  Urbanization is causing damage to the forests. ",4.800000190734863,5.2282367
"I'm proud to stand proposition of today's motion that year round schooling should be implemented. So for the model, I think this is fairly straightforward that you're going to consent into summer school, so it's not going to be this thing that's mandatory for all children, so like the model for year round schooling that exists right now, is essentially just that there are summer schools that exist for multiple purposes, whether that be as a thing for kids who are behind on their classes to catch up with their classmates or if it's a thing where kids that want to get ahead in sort of graduate early can do that, or any multitude of reasons why an individual might want to engage in year round schooling, but the point being that it is a thing you consent into. Three independent points under this: first is that choice is good and that there are individuals it works for, and the individuals that it doesn't work for don't have to engage in the system. Secondly, that it increases educational opportunity and educational benefits and the quality of education, and third that it is a more efficient system. So first under notice of like why choice is good. Recognize that this is a thing that doesn't like harm you if you do not engage in it, right? There are obviously going to be kids that this doesn't work for, that they are kids that need sort of that like unstructured time during the summer where they're not in school, right? Those people don't have to engage in year round schooling, right? Like the people who are going to engage in year round schooling are most likely going to be people that, you know, like failed a class and want to graduate on time, because there are like structural reasons why they need to do that regarding like their employment or like their college aspirations or things like that, right? There are kids who are just like extremely smart and want to get ahead, or like their parents want to get them ahead or whatever. Insofar as there are legitimate reasons why individuals would want to use this type of schooling, it is always better to give them the option to do that and then allow people that it wouldn't work for to consent out of the system. Second independent point is it's better education. So this is true because it breaks like the severing that occurs in the learning process with a large summer break, right? This is especially true for multi year classes like in new york state for example, where world history is taught over the course of two years. So when you sever your your learning like that, when you have like a large break in the middle of your educational career, essentially, and there's this huge break between when you're learning about these things, it mentally distances you from the subject you were learning. You are coming back in the fall very rusty, like not as accustomed a school, it's like this almost foreign thing to you a lot of the time, where it takes like a while to get back into the swing of things. That creates like a lot of inefficiencies in the system, but it also decreases your retention of the things that you learn in the long term because it's not a constant source of information coming to you. There are large breaks in the middle of it. So that's a problem for the quality of your education, and we think we should allow people to consent into a system that gives them a better education. The third independent point is efficiency. So, this breaks down in two ways: the first is that, in three ways rather. The first is that by breaking that severing in the learning process you increase the educational efficiency because you don't have to backtrack and like reteach things and things like that when people come back into the system. Secondly, it gives kids more structure in the summer, right? So like a lot of the time you would have, you have like literally entire industries dedicated to like keeping kids entertained in the summer time like things like summer camp and things like that. We think these are naturally inefficient. They use large amounts of space that could be used for other things, they are necessarily like expensive and we think that's a like a drain on family finances, when you could have this publicly funded school system that instead gives your kids the structure that they need during the summer and gives them things to do and keeps them entertained. Lastly under this though, is that it's like literally a waste of space to not be utilizing the school during the summer. That is sort of like this hollow house that serves no purpose and occupies large amounts of land. Especially in cities where space is like a scarce thing, it is important to ensure that spaces are constantly being used in order to ensure that you are not wasting space that could be used on something else. Because it's a zero sum, people have to be in a location at any given time, and when they are not in school they are somewhere else using some other space that could be used for a different thing. So it's always good when we keep the space actively engaged. Proud to propose.",4.4666666984558105,4.6464543
"We should ban media conglomerates.  Media conglomerates are a huge threat to our society.  They are a huge threat to our culture and our way of life, and they do it incredibly inefficiently.  They do things like they don't reflect the diversity of opinions that we hold in a democracy, and they don't reflect the diversity of opinions that we hold in a free society, because they simply do not reflect the diversity of opinions, that we hold in a free society.  With that in mind, we think it's important to ban these media groups.  We think that these are a huge harm to our culture and to our way of life.  We think that they are a huge threat to our culture, and we think that they are incredibly inefficient and inefficient.  We think that they're something that we need to get rid of, and the reason for this is that they do things like provide a bad example for young entrepreneurs, they don't provide a good example for young people to learn from, and they don't provide any sort of good example for young people to learn from, in any other way.  So what we're going to say about these things is that we think that they're bad examples, and we think that they're bad examples from which to learn.  We think that there are a number of problems with the way that media typically works, and we think that by banning these types of media conglomerates, by banning the types of media that they produce, that you get rid of many of the problems.  So, we think that there are a number of problems that these media entities do, and we think that by banning them, you get rid of them.  First, they're incredibly inefficient.  They're a drain on capital, they're a drain on resources, and they are not a sustainable way of getting your information.  We think that if you ban these types of media, you get rid of them, and you don't get any sort of good news.  You get sensationalized news, you get sensationalized stories, and you get sensationalized stories that are likely to get clicks, that are likely to get views, and that's not good.  Secondly, they're incredibly inefficient.  We think that they're bad ways of getting your news.  They're bad ways of getting your information.  The fact that they're all on television at the same time as live events and things like that means that they're all on television at the same time as live events and things like that.  They're all on television at the same time as live events, and they are all on television at the same time as live events.  And this means that you end up, in the worst case, with a general lack of accountability, and you end up, in the worst case, with people who do not have a good understanding of what is happening in the real world, and you get that on television.  We think that you get a bad education, a bad example to learn from, and a bad example to learn from when you allow these types of media to exist.  For these reasons, we should ban media conglomerates. ",4.333333492279053,3.983027
"Some seniors just don't have enough money to retire especially with the high cost of medicare and supplements.  Many people now cannot afford to live on their pension and pay for healthcare - thus making them retire is condemning them to ill health and poverty almost certainly resulting in premature death.  Some people can’t afford to retire so it’s not fair to force them to.  People are now living longer and staying healthy.   they should be able to work as long as they are able to and contribute to our society.  Some people are not ready to retire at the mandatory age and want to keep working.  People are living far longer than they used to and are not ready to retire at the age they used to.  many need the income to support their longer lives.  People who wish to continue working should be able to do so.  Mandatory retirement takes trained individuals from the workforce.  People should be allowed to retire when they are ready.  People are living much longer these days and many of them want to work.  let the free market determine how long they work.  Prohibiting mandatory retirement promotes labour market supply and removes barriers to older people participating in society.  Many older people are perfectly capable of contributing to the workforce.   they should not be punished by being forced to retire at a particular age.  People have the right to work until they want.  Mandatory retirement should end because it cuts everyone off at a certain age.   many people are able to work and need to work well past that age.  We should not force people out of the workplace if they can continue to offer skills to companies.  People are valuable at any age and should be allowed to work for as long as they want to.  We should end mandatory retirement as many people now live longer healthier lives and should be given the choice to continue working or if financially struggling.  We should end mandatory retirement because some people need to work longer to be able to support themselves and/or their families.  We should end mandatory retirement because not all people have the same stamina as others and can work longer than others.  We should end mandatory retirement because it should be up to each individual what age they feel they are unable to work any longer.  We should end mandatory retirement because it stops elderly from being able to work if they are still physically able.  We should end mandatory retirement because it helps the younger crowd to be able to find jobs.  People should be allowed to work for as long as they want and as long as they are capable.  We should not be permissive of any discrimination, and mandatory retirement discriminates based on age.  We should end mandatory retirement because no one has the right to tell another person when they have to stop working.  it is an individual's choice and should be left up to them when they wish to call it quits.  We should end mandatory retirement because  it is discriminatory against the elderly.  We should end mandatory retirement some people have to work to supplement government pensions.   it gives them social interaction which they may not have if they arent working.  We should end mandatory retirement because people should be able to work as long as they are able to and want to.  We should end mandatory retirement because a person should be able to work for as long as they wish as long as they do not pose as a safety threat to those around them. ",4.400000095367432,4.0048876
"Community service should be mandatory.  We think that the government should pay for this by offering a wage, so that people can work long and hard and be sure that they are doing good for the community.  Three arguments for why this should be the case: first on how it's good for the community.  Right now, you have a situation in which people don't have to work hard or make long-term sacrifices for the community.  For instance, if you live in a city and you want to increase access to people of color, or to immigrants, or to a variety of other groups that aren't represented in the status quo, then you have to push people out of the city.  In the same way, if you're a part of a certain community and you want to encourage more people to join the community, then you have to make sacrifices for the community in order to ensure that more people are in the community.  We think that this is fundamentally unjust and ultimately leads to people being excluded from the community.  We also think that in order to encourage long-term growth and stability, you need to have a community that has some sort of reciprocation for the people who live in the community.  For instance, if you are a very racist community that is resisting integration, then you don't want to see people of color in the same room with you.  And we think that this is not the case in the US, where you don't have these kind of reciprocation.  So the other side might say, "" oh, but the US has it "" but the reason for this is that there's a massive amount of racism in the US.  But I think that this is a very clear-cut example of the kind of racist backlash that we would get rid of.  We think that, for instance, when the US government tried to take over the southern part of the united states in the early twentieth century, this led to the secession of the southern part of the united states from the union.  We think that it's clear that the US would never have the same kind of relationship with the russian people if it were to try to do this.  And in a way, we think that this is analogous.  If the US were to try to take over the northern half of the US, this would ultimately be the same thing.  Ultimately, because it's in the interest of the majority of the US, and also because it's in the interest of russia, we should implement this policy.  Our second argument is that this would make the US less dependent on russia.  Right now, the US has to rely on russia for almost everything.  Everything from the military to social security to welfare to health care to housing programs to welfare.  If the US wanted to leave russia, it would be much more difficult for other countries to take care of them.  So we think that ultimately the US would be much weaker and less able to take care of its own citizens.  We also think that the US would be much more prone to corruption because of this.  Right now, the US is run by a system called the "" one-party state "" where the political power is concentrated in one area.  We think that if you took power of the entire US and maybe some parts of the european union, ultimately the result would be much more democratic.  We also think that it would be more likely that the US would respect the wishes of russia.  For instance, if you wanted to change the name of the US embassy in russia, you would be opposed by the population, and ultimately the US wouldn't accept it.  So with the loss of russia, there's also a loss of power.  And in a way, it's similar.  If you're a country that wants to create a democracy, and you want to encourage the people to vote, then you lose out on all of the other citizens who are participating in that democracy.  So ultimately, for all of these reasons, we should implement community service.  Thank you. ",3.866666555404663,3.7947967
"Prescribing drugs to people with serious conditions is dangerous because it's too likely they won't use them.  Over-the-counter drugs are harmful because people are using them instead of seeking out proven methods.  Over-the-counter drugs can give people false hope while they could be using proven medicines.  Over-the-counter drugs do not always cure the illness and may interact with other substances negatively.  Over-the-counter drugs are not as effective and efficient as prescription drugs.  There is no evidence that shows that prescription drugs is effective.  Naturopathy is unproven scientfically, and.  Over-the-counter drugs are generally used by doctors to treat ailments that cannot be treated otherwise.  they do not take advantage of scientific knowledge  to maximize the pain of the patient.   this is dangerous and in some cases lives could be saved by.  Over-the-counter drugs are essentially untested, unregulated substances that may pose a significant threat to public health.  We should ban over-the-counter drugs because they are dangerous and not proven to be safe.  We should prohibit over the counter drugs because there are no proper regulations and they are not tested and thoroughly.  Over-the-counter drugs are dangerous because they have not undergone testing and evaluation like the real deal.  There are far too many deaths from prescription drugs in the united states.   it is so important that people have access to proven medicines.  Over-the-counter drugs have no proven benefits for the treatment of specific diseases.  Over-the-counter drugs should be banned as they are not evidence-based and the results of people taking them could be skewed.  It is difficult to monitor and enforce the rules of a prescription drug are often outdated and harmful.  We should prohibit over-the-counter drugs since it is not fair to saddle people with diseases they cannot cure themselves of.  We should prohibit over the counter drugs because there is no proof they are even effective and some people die from them due to overdose.  Over-the-counter drugs are generally ineffective and there is no real reason to keep buying them.  Over-the-counter drugs are harmful to people with serious illnesses, such as cancer and ms.  If it wasnt illegal, people could still trade and make money off of them.  It is extremely common for people to not seek out proven medical remedies in an attempt to cure a sickness.  Over-the-counter drugs are more dangerous because they have a shelf life that may extend beyond their expiration date.  Over the counter drugs are not as effective as the prescription drugs they are designed to cure which is putting them out of business.  There is no evidence that these remedies work.  Over-the-counter drugs are extremely dangerous, people have died because of them.  These drugs are dangerous and not used regularly.  If we ban over-the-counter drugs there will be less people taking advantage of them.  Over-the-counter drugs are less effective and have side effects.  Its been proven that cannabis is not as harmful to humans as tobacco or alcohol and that it takes up too much of law enforcement resources because of police in the state.  it is therefore time to move on to a new system.  Over-the-counter drugs are very dangerous and can cause more problems health wise than it fixes.  Over-the-counter drugs are a huge risk to public health, because the use of them could lead to overdose.  Over-the-counter medications are often dangerous because they inhibit natural functions of the body in a way that may lead to death.  Over-the-counter drugs have no scientific basis and may pose significant health risks if not utilized properly.  Over-the-counter drugs have no proven benefits for humans, and may have significant side effects.  Over-the-counter drugs are generally used by health care providers to cover their operations. ",4.400000095367432,4.118316
"Man-made climate change will lead to negative outcomes for the planet.  The climate crisis already threatens the health of our planet and the viability of our economy.  The climate crisis is an existential threat to our planet.  On top of this we must fight global warming too, because a warmer world will be a wetter one.  Man-made climate change is a dangerous reality. ).  Man-made climate change is our greatest threat.  Tackling global warming also presents the greatest global opportunity to improve people's health in the 21st century.  The best approach to the problem of global warming continues to be reductions of greenhouse gases.  Inaction on global warming represents a major risk to businesses that should be clearly articulated to policymakers, the american public and investors.  Man-made ""climate change"" causes coastal erosion.  The global warming ultimately resulted in the massive erosion of the land due to the deterioration of protective coastal sea ice.  Manmade global warming is destroying the planet, with average temperatures increasing every year at an alarming rate.  Threat from global warming poses a national risk rivalling that of terrorism, and should be seen as a top security priority.  Man-made climate change is one of the ""greatest threats"" to the country.  The impacts of human-caused climate change are intensifying across the country and are already compromising americans' well-being.  The globe's climate crisis threatens to transform the earth into a planet fundamentally hostile to people.  Manmade global warming imperiled our society's wellbeing.  Man-made climate change is dangerous.  Unchecked global warming will have a huge negative effect on the economy, dwarfing the costs of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.  Increase in global warming is also posing increased threat to renewable water sources.  The climate crisis is the greatest public health threat of our time.  Unmitigated man-made climate change could likely pose significant problems for humanity as the 21st century unfolds.  Said global warming is a ""very serious"" problem.  Man-made climate change is happening and is a threat to public health and our environment.  Large consumers of fossil fuels, which accelerate global warming, increase world instability and lead to a real death spiral of more war and conflict.  Reducing greenhouse gases and fighting global warming are a moral obligation.  Tackling the global climate crisis was a viable solution to both economic and social issues, and advocated for unity among climate-change activists.  This global warming is behind every destructive weather event.  Increasing global warming will lead to more severe weather and rising oceans.  The risks of human-caused climate change are now the greatest threat in the fight to tackle global poverty.  Man-made climate change is real and a danger to our planet.  Man-made climate change is an imminent threat to society.  Rising sea levels through global warming can have catastrophic effects on many areas across the globe.  Risks and damages of global warming far outweigh possible benefits.  Man-made climate change is a reality that is threatening our planet.  The climate crisis is the greatest threat we face as a nation.  Man-made climate change is significant and dangerous.  The climate crisis threatens the global economy.  The climate crisis is a real, human-caused threat.  Mechanisms to fight global warming can help foster peace.  Man-made climate changes are real and they pose a great threat to the planet and its inhabitants.  The fight against global warming is becoming increasingly urgent.  Unmitigated global warming poses unacceptable risks to human welfare.  Manmade global warming is causing a range of problems, including extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes and drought, across the world.  Human-induced global warming holds significant consequences for life on earth.  Manmade global warming poses a major threat. ",4.599999904632568,4.912149
"If all crimes were eliminated there will be less violent crime.  The use of public defenders should be mandatory as they are able to tell a whole story and not have to worry about who is telling the truth and who is trying to frame a conspiracy.  The use of public defenders should be mandatory because each offense committed should be judged on its own severity and punished accordingly.  The use of presidential pardons is in effect nullifying the rights of all citizens as a whole.  Presidential pardons are a way of making the rich richer.  Presidential pardons are often seen as a form of favoritism towards a particular sex or social gender.  we should end this before gender-equality is ever achieved.  Presidential pardons are unnecessary when a person is found to have committed a heinous crime that has otherwise been deemed impossible to track down.  The use of presidential pardons should be banned as it can result in the death of innocents who are nearby.  it is better to have a trial and have a fair trial.  The pardon system has no merit in this day and age.  The use of pardons should be banned as it is not fair that the person should not be given a chance to go straight.  Presidential pardons put the power of judges in the hands of the people, which is why they act in a way that is more likely to harm society.  Pardon is still in effect and merely perpetuates a system of racial discrimination.  This whole process of exonerating criminals takes place in a way that is really unfair, since the criminal must always have a chance to go to trial to prove their innocence.  Some people could be innocent and just be in the wrong place.  there is never a right to throw a litany for a person.  The use of pardons should be banned as there are way too many people who could be innocent and still be dead because of the crime.  Presidential pardons cause more problems than they solve because people end up serving longer sentences just because of less severe crimes, meaning that they still cannot afford a better lawyer.  The use of pardons should be banned as they are expensive and sometimes result in overcrowded prisons.  The pardon system is antiquated and does not serve the public interest.  The presidential pardon is a gross injustice, and the means that the criminal can potentially walk for free.  It is unfair to have a person who has committed a crime but is otherwise difficult to track down.  The use of public defenders should be mandatory to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone in a given case.  The presidential pardon is an outdated tradition that will never be used in modern society.  Presidential pardons are in essence, presidential resignations.  Presidential pardons should be abolished because no crime is ever committed that would warrant a pardon.  We should abolish the presidential pardon because it is a way of softening the punishment for a crime committed before they commit it and doesnt hold up future opportunities.  Presidential pardons are a way of reverse  the course of history and put criminals behind bars.  Presidential pardons are essentially life sentences for non-violent felonies, which is deeply unfair.  Presidential pardons should be abolished because it is unfair to put someone in jail for a long time if they commit a minor crime.  The presidential pardon is a way of circumventing the normal judicial system.  Presidential pardon is an unjust form of punishment that causes more harm than good.  there are no guidelines set in place to ensure that crimes are not committed. ",4.400000095367432,4.5182056
"We should disband nasa, and we should disband nasa as a whole.  And we should disband nasa because it's not doing what it needs to be done anymore.  It needs to be disbanded as a distinct entity, and it needs to be disbanded by its members as a like a separate organization, if they're going to want to continue to do things.  But first, let's talk about why it's not doing what it needs to be done anymore.  So, there's a few reasons for why this is the case.  The first and most important is that nasa, nasa as an organization, it's been an organization for almost fifty years.  It's been an organization that people have come to expect, and it's been an organization that some people think is quite good, some people think is quite bad, and a lot of people think that it should be disbanded.  And I think that's incredibly important.  Because I think that, ultimately, it's important to recognize that, what it needs to do is provide a way for people to look at an organization, and to say: "" yes, this organization is good, this organization is bad, "" And I think that that's a really important thing to consider, because it's important to establish a precedent, it's important to establish a precedent in which, organizations like nasa, which have such a long history, are able to move past these kinds of things, are able to say: "" that's not the organization that you want to join, that's not the organization that you want to be a part of.  "" And I think that's a really important point.  So, I think it's important to note that, what it's needed to do is provide a way for people to look at these organizations and say: "" yes, this organization is good, this organization is bad, "" And I think that that's a pretty good precedent.  Because I don't think there's any real harm to adopting nasa, or in fact, I think that they add a lot of good.  So, I'm not going to argue with the fact that we need to look at nasa as a like a separate organization, and that's a good thing.  The next thing that I want to talk about is why I think the world would be much better off without nasa.  So, I think that this isn't going to be just like a like good thing, I think that this is a way for us to get back, without having to keep re-invent the entire organization, and I don't really see why it's a bad thing.  Because I don't see what the big issue is, it's about what's important, and it's about not having to keep reinventing the organization.  And, I don't really see why the organization, or any organization, is a good thing.  So, I don't really see why it has to be kept around.  And, I don't really see why it's something that we need to keep around, it's something that we should get rid of, and move to a new organization, and it's one that, I think, is going to be really good.  Because it's really clear to me, from the way that james constructed this, that he doesn't really see why you can keep having this organization and not have some alternative that he could have joined.  And I think that's really important.  Because, I don't really see what the big issue is, and it's something that we can move to an organization like an organization that's focused on environmental protection, or something like a trade association, that's focused on trade, that's focused on promoting human rights, and all these kinds of organizations, or trade associations and organizations, all are better.  So for all those reasons, we should disband nasa. ",1.7999999523162842,3.6708584
"My analysis shows that we should protect antarctica. A big issue in today's discussion is the environment. Everyone agrees that clean air, water and energy sources are preferable to a polluted earth, and that it is worth investing in order to achieve and maximize these goals. In harming the environment, the citizens of the world ultimately harm themselves. When they cause damage to nature, they endanger the ability of the human race to sustain itself in the future. In 2016, the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said in an Oxford University lecture that mounting environmental challenges and the depletion of natural resources means that humanity has at most one thousand years left on Earth. A team of scientists has found evidence that ancient volcanoes in Antarctica played a role in global climate and could help combat climate change now. As two of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, our countries are committed to ensuring that Antarctica remains a place of peaceful scientific endeavour and that commercial activities, such as fishing, are carried out in line with international conservation agreements. New studies have found a steady growth of moss in Antarctica over the last 50 years as temperatures increased as a result of climate change, and it shows that Antarctica will be much greener in the future. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should protect antarctica. My opponent today may try to convince you that in the name of making money or supposedly serving people's needs, it is right to harm the environment. But I must ask, John, is it worth the risk to us and to future generations? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ",4.199999809265137,4.150653
"We should legalize ivory trade.  We think that in the status quo, the US is one of the largest consumers of ivory, and that it's a waste of money, because we have the infrastructure to produce more in the long term.  Our first argument is that it's a violation of international law.  So, in order for the US to have an ethical obligation, it has to abide by the law of the majority of states.  This is in order to ensure that, for instance, the US doesn't step in and rule over another state, and that would be unjust.  So, in order for the US to have an ethical obligation, it has to abide by the law of the majority of states.  We think that this is, in essence, a violation of sovereignty.  If the united states decides to invade another state, that is, to take it, and then rule over the state that is being invaded.  We think that it's unacceptable for the US to rule over other states, and to rule over a state that is not being attacked.  And moreover, in the status quo, the US is one of the largest producers of ivory in the world.  It's true that the US is a poor place to buy ivory, but it is one of the largest importers of ivory, and we think that it's clear that the US is going to continue to be one of the largest importers of ivory, and one of the largest consumers of ivory, and that this is a violation of US law, and one of the few remaining checks on the US, as a sovereign state.  Our second argument is that it's a poor use of funds.  In the status quo, the US is one of the few states that can afford to import ivory.  We see that the US is the only country in the world that can afford to import ivory, and that this is a major reason why the US has such a strong economy.  Why is that the case? Well, first of all, we think it's important to recognize that the US is a very poor place to spend money.  We see that the US has a very low rate of return on investment, and the reason for that is that the US is a poor place to spend money.  The reason for that is that, in order for the US to be a strong, wealthy, powerful country, it has to have economic stability, and that's not happening in the US.  We think that if you had the US buying and selling ivory, that this would then create economic instability, because there's no way that the US can buy back all of the ivory, in order to invest in its economy.  And in the same way, we think that it's clear that if you had the US buying and selling ivory, that this would create economic instability, because there's no way that the US can invest in all of the ivory, in order to invest in its economy.  And in the same way, we think that it's clear that if you have the US buying and selling ivory, that this would destabilize the US, and that this would lead to a trade war between the two countries, which would ultimately undermine the US economy.  For all of these reasons, we should legalize ivory trade.  Thank you. ",3.933333396911621,3.7592726
"We should subsidize wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free and open encyclopedia on the internet. It can be edited by basically anyone and, yes, there's a review process. It's not just like those edits will stay without some sort of review by general volunteers that work with wikipedia or wikipedia staff. Wikipedia does not cost a whole lot of money to run despite the fact that it has a huge amount of internet traffic, and it isn't actually profitable given that they don't have ads on the site. We think that in the subsidy we should give a no strings attached full funding for wikipedia's budget, given that it's mostly just server cost and it's simply not very expensive. Okay. First, we want to talk about how wikipedia expands human knowledge. Wikipedia is a truly revolutionary development in human history. It's difficult to understate or it's difficult to overstate overstate the impact that wikipedia's had in spreading the openness of human knowledge. It's an open source of information that's available to access for anyone that has internet access unless there's some sort of country firewall, but it's not a wikipedia firewall that's preventing you from accessing it at that point. It's an amazing resource for people to learn about all branches of human knowledge across cultures and languages. It's unlike any encyclopedia before in that it's not just something that was designed by experts or, you know, put together by a few like a few people or a group of people, and it's not something that's limited by like, you know, a a binding book or a a number of pages. It's something that has articles on almost any topic, any person of note, any field of study, any type of of almost anything that you can imagine, that you would want to have some sort of formalized article about can be found on wikipedia. It's it's a truly remarkable encyclopedia in that sense, and it's impossible to overstate how impactful that can be. For the first time in human history, we compiled information about so many subjects in a way that it can be constantly updated to reflect new information, and it's made available for free with relatively low barriers to entry. It is a true it's a truly immense tool for educating the public. We think this is a clearly good use of subsidy because it's incredibly low cost relative to the to the budget of any developed country, and it's a resource that can benefit all citizens in a wide variety of ways. It's not partisan, it's not biased, it is an open source of information created by the public, and that's the second thing we wanna talk about: communal generation of information. This is revolutionary in a second way. Anyone can edit wikipedia or add new entries. For most of human history, the information that was shared and put in publicized articles and journals and and encyclopedias was dictated by close by closed-off institutions like universities, governments, professional boards, publishers, etcetera. Wikipedia breaks down those barriers and allows a community to arise that make fact-checking possible while still allowing for a free flow of information that's created by the community of the world. All people get to be a part of knowledge generation, not just for some side project, but for one of the most impactful and used encyclopedias on the planet at this point, certainly one of the most used reference sources in human history, and it's not being controlled by some small group of people or some elite group of people. It's being controlled by the people of the world. They get to dictate what knowledge is shared and what knowledge is deemed important for the first time in human history. It returns the keys the keys and language of knowledge to the common people and allows for more information to be spread than ever before possible. For these reasons, we should subsidize wikipedia.",4.933333396911621,4.628522
"The euro will ultimately fail.  The nobel laureate economist joseph e.  stiglitz has indicted the euro as a leading source of economic inequality that has divided european nations into two stark classes - creditor and debtor.  The euro posed a major threat to prosperity around the world.  The euro is something bad.  The euro has structural problems.  The euro is a failed experiment.  The strength of the euro currency threatens the region's economy.  The euro threatens the future and stability of europe.  The euro is the root of problems within the eu.  The euro is a burden.  The euro is a mess.  The recent public opinion polls prove this fact showing that most latvians oppose the adoption of the single european currency.  The euro was a crime against humanity.  Euro is a failed currency and the euro zone has been proven to be unsuitable.  The euro itself has failed.  The euro had a negative impact on price developments in their home country.  The euro experiment has failed.  The euro would raise the cost of living.  Euro has been proven to be failed and wants countries to be allowed to leave the eurozone.  The euro was ""too weak.  The euro is dangerously vulnerable to a global downturn many believe is now under way.  The euro will be expensive.  The euro will remain a danger for the world economy.  Euro failure threatens a thousand plagues.  Wednesday's poll also showed that danes are increasingly against adopting the euro itself, owing largely to the prolonged sovereign debt-crisis in the euro zone.  A strong euro will harm competitiveness.  The euro is becoming worthless.  Having the euro is a bad thing.  The latest zdf poll shows that 65pc of germans think the euro is damaging and 49pc think germany would better outside the eu.  The euro will ultimately fail in its present form and the dream of a unified ""euro"" country will end.  Euro membership is doing more harm than good and threatens democracy itself.  The euro experiment has failed and should be abandoned.  The german television station zdf ran a poll showing that almost half of the country believes germany would be better off without the euro.  The euro has a negative impact on their economies.  The euro is 'leading to disaster.  The nobel prize-winning economist joseph stiglitz says the european single currency, the euro, is to blame for high unemployment, weak growth and the rise of the far right.  The leader of the national front argued that the euro is the root of problems within the eu.  Euro could collapse, unleashing another round of global instability.  The euro is doomed, but nuclear power is safe.  The euro would never work and was sure to drive the weaker countries on its fringes into ruin.  The euro is the problem and if the eu wants to save itself, it may have to abandon the euro.  The strong euro is becoming a problem for the economy.  The euro cannot work, the euro cannot succeed.  The euro is a ""crime against humanity.  The euro had failed to offer a satisfactory alternative.  The euro has led to massive youth unemployment.  The euro will undermine the political cohesion of the european economy.  The euro currency is going to fail.  A stronger euro could harm the german economy.  A stronger euro has a negative impact on margins.  The euro can never work.  This report shows that the euro has cost us wealth, economic growth and spending power , said mr wilders, who has been demanding a referendum on whether or not to leave the euro.  The euro is a failed experiment.  The euro would cause big problems.  The euro has been a woeful failure.  The euro encourages imbalances.  The euro currency is crumbling. ",4.800000190734863,4.531198
"We should abandon social media, and we should probably abandon it for a couple of reasons.  The first is that social media is very bad.  So why is? I'll tell you shortly why I think it's obvious that social media is bad.  But the problem is that many people, perhaps even a lot of people, don't know why it's bad.  And I'll tell you later why I think it's important to establish a baseline norm where people don't talk about things that are very intimate in private on their cell phone, where they can't talk about things that are very personal on their cell phone.  But I'll also tell you why it's bad in a broader sense.  So first, I think that it's bad because you get distracted by all of these external things.  You see all of the benefits of having a one-on-one time with someone, with someone that's your significant other or that you just have a one-on-one time with someone that's a significant other.  But these things aren't all that important.  And I'll show you why in a minute why these are all things that are bad.  But secondly, I think that what's important is that I think that this is just a way for people to express what's really important.  And I'll explain why in a minute why this is a way of life that people should try to live.  So why do I think this is a way of life? It's a way of life in which you don't really have to have very intimate things with people that you could be with in real life, and that's important.  Because I'll show you in a minute why this is a way of life that people should be allowed to have, but shouldn't be banned outright.  I'll also tell you later why this is a way of life that people should be allowed to have.  But I'll also tell you later why it's bad for society.  So why do I think it's harmful? First, it's bad for you.  It's bad for you because it's it's it encourages people to take risks, to take on risks, to take on things like job offers, it encourages people to be risk averse, to not be satisfied with things that they've been offered.  So it encourages you to do things like use your imagination and to think about things that you never thought about before.  It encourages you to go to places that you never thought about before and to think about things that you never thought about before.  It encourages you to be more risky a person, and to be more risky a person in a world where all of the things that I just said about why it's bad for society are also true, and there's no real reason not to ban it.  But second, I think that this is a way of life that people should try to go to, and it's one that's very good.  It's one in which you don't have to have this level of emotional dependence on other people that you have to worry about.  It's one in which you can be with your significant other, and that's a good thing.  The second thing I'd like to talk about is why it's bad for society.  So, when you talk about how it gets distracted, you're probably talking about a reason that people do it in the first place.  It's because some of the benefits that are accrued from social media are things that are fairly intrinsic to the way that society functions, and in the same way that people can communicate with each other in real life, these are things that are incredibly important.  And it's important to me as someone who is a woman to think about how much would it be good if we were able to communicate with each other on our cell phones? It's important to me as someone who is a man to think about how much it would be good if we could communicate with each other on our cell phones? These are things that are intrinsic to our society, and they're important to each person in their life.  It's not important for the government or any other individual to tell them what's good for them.  It's not important for anybody to tell them how to live their life.  It's not important for anybody to tell them what's good for them.  We need to let people do what is in their best interest, and if social media is a way of life that we think is important, I think that we should definitely ban it. ",3.2666666507720947,3.7969842
"We should end the use of mass surveillance. Three main arguments: first, on the right to privacy. When citizens exist under a government, they don't opt into having their lives documented and viewed in the same way that they might opt into laws that limit their mobility or require their registration. This is necessarily undemocratic because when asked, every single person would say that this isn't what they want and isn't how they want their government behaving. Insofar as the government is supposed to reflect the will of the majority of individuals, and way more than the majority would say they don't want to be mass surveilled, we think that already this is enough reason to vote for gov. But the other issue here is that we think that people just don't feel comfortable being individuals and accessing the freedoms that are guaranteed by things like the constitution. So when we say like the right to the pursuit of liberty and life and freedom and the pursuit of happiness, these things are dependent on individuals being comfortable with themselves and comfortable with their environment. There's this thing in psychology called the hawthorne effect which is, essentially, that individuals who know that they are being watched change the way that they behave, because people are awkward by nature. They feel embarrassed about things that they maybe shouldn't feel embarrassed about, but there are also stigmas in society that make them feel embarrassed about completely normal processes and completely normal actions. What this means is that things that are often central to our identity and central to our self-actualization are also things that someone wouldn't perform in public. This can be everything from the type of media you consume, from the type of sex that you have, who you have sex with, all of these things are things that get tracked when mass surveillance occurs but individually, things that individuals wouldn't want to be tracked. So if they knew that mass surveillance was occurring, would stop themselves from doing or be less likely to be to be exhibiting. And we think that this directly inhibits the rights that are codified in the constitution. So even if you don't buy into the idea of the right to privacy, we think you do have to buy into the underlying framework of our nation and recognize that it needs to be supported. Our second argument is about giving too much power to the police. Literally everybody commits small crimes, whether this is stealing food from your workplace, whether this is something like jaywalking, whether it's checking your neighbor's mail every now and then to make sure that your letter didn't get in there. All of these and I'm sure there are many more, because a lot of laws are incredibly old and we don't necessarily know what they like what they are when we act in society. So we think the problem becomes this literally allows the police to just go into those mass surveillance tapes or recordings and find something that they can decide that individual has done. And even if it's not a reason for arrest, even if it's not a real crime, we think that there's always going to be probable cause, because it's just a matter of digging through the footage for something that looks minorly suspicious. And we think this is really bad because we think that when police are given such unabridged power, that is when they start to abuse it and that is when we start moving away from a democracy and moving away from individuals having freedom. That's when we start like fascist regimes get put in place is when the police are just allowed to do whatever they want. We also think that oftentimes this gets applied in an incredibly asymmetric manner. Like we see with police brutality, this disproportionately targets people of color within the united states. And we think oftentimes when police choose to convict someone or accuse someone, this also disproportionately happens to people of color. Our third argument is about placating the public. Mass surveillance always leaks because it's something that the average person feels deeply uncomfortable with. So, oftentimes, even the people doing the surveilling on the part of the government also feel deeply conflicted about the fact that they are doing it. So this is what you get things like incredibly large public protest and coups. So if you want to protect the domestic peace, you will stop mass surveilling. Proud to propose.",4.5333333015441895,4.2799425
"Whether Article 51 recognizes a pre-existent right to self-defense or limits that right of self-defense is presently being debated. 
Number two, that Israel had the right of self-defense in the -- in the light of those attacks and we supported that right of self-defense. 
Romano is right when he says that the right of self-defense is an old principle. 
The founding fathers recognized that the right of self-defense and defense of freedom are paramount. 
The Second Amendment is a recognition that the right to self-defense is a God-given right. 
Gun owners object that this would limit their right to self-defense, and point out Massachusetts already has strict gun storage laws. 
That fact shows why it's unreasonable to limit the right to self-defense while the law has no hold on criminals and dangerous nuts around us. 
In upholding the ammunition limit as reasonable, Shwartz disputed that the right to self-defense entitles a gun owner to carry large-capacity magazines. 
This book also points out that the right to self-defense was always considered a right in common law and not a right that required constitutional protection. 
Article 51 articulates that a State has ""the inherent right of . . .  self-defence ifan armed attack occurs,"" and the lack of conditional language could indicate that the framers did not intend to limit the right to self-defense to ""if and only if' an armed attack occurs. 
A state-funded institution should not be allowed to impose rules more strict than state law, especially rules to limit one's right to self-defense. 
All she asks is the ability to defend herself and for free people to support that right to self-defense. 
The ICJ has found that the right of self-defense may only be exercised against a significant attack. 
In all instances, the strict rule is that the right to self-defense exists only against a state - and no other entity. 
Several dozen retired general and flag officers are urging the Supreme Court to hear a case that could vastly limit troops' right to self-defense in combat zones. 
U. N.  organizations, by contrast, have in the past argued that gun control is mandated by international human rights law, and that the right of self-defense does not exist. 
Indeed, when a person experiences an actual threat, the need to exercise that right of self-defense becomes more immediately primal and deeply felt than any other constitutional right. 
There is no cavil with the proposition that right of self-defence is a fundamental right guaranteed by law. 
Stand-your-ground recognizes that the right to self-defense extends beyond the home and is an essential liberty of free people. 
It is true that the right of self-defence is available under Islamic Law but it is also established law that the plea of self-defence is not available to an aggressor. 
The test for excessive self-defence and defensive homicide are similar, both requiring a belief that defensive force was necessary but where the response was objectively not reasonable. 
Even otherwise, it is an established principle of law that right of self-defence if accrued cannot be weighed in golden scales. 
State statutes provide very broad terms as to what can be considered defensive force and how people may carry out that defensive force in a dwelling, business or property. 
In any assault case, self defence is a valid legal defence - if it is deemed that ""reasonable force"" was used. 
For MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, the 6th Security Forces Squadron is that defensive force protecting more than 42,000 military personnel, family members, and civilian employees. 
It's hard to argue that defensive force Rapheal Davis, the increasingly versatile Vince Edwards and freshman phenom Caleb Swanigan shouldn't start. 
It is claimed that reasonable force' had been used in response to the threat of assault. 
Jurors were instructed that reasonable force could be used to prevent a forcible offense against others. 
Ruling party MPs have said that ""reasonable force"" may be used to clear the occupied building. 
",2.933333396911621,3.5322263
"We should end cheerleading. So we think that the US predominantly, but also other countries where cheerleading has taken hold, should pass legislation to end public support for it, and that we shouldn't have things like cheerleaders at pro sports games or parades and other events. We would prefer a world where cheerleading was done away with, even if it's not explicitly banned. A couple of arguments for our side. The first is that we think cheerleading is demeaning to women. At its root, cheerleading equates women's appearance with men's ability. So, because cheerleading is usually associated in the US, where almost all cheerleaders are located, with sports like football, ultimately you are equating the football players with the cheerleaders. But how are these two things different? The football players are exhibiting athletic prowess and incredible skill and talent, in a way where people respect them because of the hard work that they put in and their incredible skill. The cheerleaders certainly do work hard and I don't want to say that they're not, and that they don't have skill because clearly they do, and their routines are quite complex, but they're being valued more for their appearance and attractiveness, more than anything else. What's more, they're being used as a display to encourage the football players and to encourage fans to be more supportive of their team, rather than being celebrated in their own right. And while it's true that there are now standalone cheerleading competitions today, people still generally associate cheerleading with this traditional role that they've had in encouraging football players and other athletes to play better, and encouraging people to root better for their male compatriots. So ultimately, because cheerleading reduces women to the status of props for men's athletics, we think that this is really demeaning. That it encourages people to ignore these women's abilities or skills or talents, and only look to their appearance and how well they encourage the fans to root for their male counterparts. Ultimately, this seems very demeaning to the women who participate in this. And we think that the alternative world in which these women are playing sports on their own, or participating in other activities where they can be celebrated and rewarded for their hard work, would be a better one compared to the world in which they are cheerleaders. I know the other side will say that people like opt into being cheerleaders and want to do this, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing. People make bad decisions all the time, and even if people want to do something, that doesn't mean that it's something that's good for them. Our second argument is that we think this is exploitative of little girls. Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with sexualizing grown women who are sexual beings and or have the ability to consent into this and understand it. But because cheerleading is something that's so sexualized, we think it's problematic that it's so prominent for young women or young girls to participate in. Many girls begin cheerleading even before middle school, when they're pre-pubescent, yet the outfits that they wear and the routines that they perform are still sexualized. And this only continues into high school or middle school, when the girls are sexualized even further, especially by media that often portrays them as the natural people for athletes to date or have sex with. So we think that ultimately, it's somewhat creepy and certainly exploitive to encourage little girls to go into an activity that sexualizes them, and treats them more as objects for the enjoyment of these athletes than it does as individuals. Moreover, we don't think that these girls can positively opt into becoming cheerleaders, because they're too young to understand the implications of the sexual implications of the activity that they're participating in. So ultimately, because this is demeaning to women, and because it sexualizes young girls, we think that we should end cheerleading. Thank you.",4.5333333015441895,4.514549
"It is very important that people do not abuse each other in order to get what they want.  It is very likely that we would be better off without the constant threat of terrorism.  It is  important  that all people  have the right to  learn  about  their history and their own  religion  and  that religion is not  a  victim  of religious discrimination.  Unesco is no longer necessary to research and protect the interests of the local communities who have historically suffered from it.  Unesco is an antiquated institution which has no place in modern society.  We should abolish the right to keep and bear arms because it is a major cause of the increase in murders this year.  We should abolish unesco because they are biased in favor of bigger countries and ignore smaller ones that might be more deserving.  We should disband unesco because it is biased and in the minority.  We should disband the nazis as it should not be a subject of discussion as it is a fact that many nazis are in the group that commits terrorist acts.   they should be charged with a crime and have a fair trial.  The right to be taught is a concept that has no place in a modern society where there is so much inequality and we need to do something about it.  Unesco is a huge, unwieldy organisation that has no place in a modern world where there is so much individualism and world-spanning interest.  They provide free legal representation and enable poor people to have representation in court.  We should disband the national organizations devoted to the study and practice of astrology as it does not serve the public interest to have high standards of scientific and medical quality.  Everyone has a right to a private military company providing armed combat or security services.   they should be allowed to make money off of the military action.  The use of unesco will be abused to gain valuable information.  We should disband the nusoleural and cultural aspects of the world to make space for new ideas.  We should disband the nusre to stop it from being biased.  It is a shame that the people who do most of the work arent paid so much.  It is very expensive to host and many people do not qualify to be there.  Unesco is very expensive and often results in having to cut funding.  It is a waste of money to build and maintain the expensive institutions, as well as the students who use them.  Unesco has been a waste of money and does not serve the public good.  The organization has no capacity to absorb all the  data it would need to be able to make informed decisions in a crisis.  Unesco is a huge waste of money and doesnt help students in any way.  The use of unesco is a form of treason as it intentionally destroys the right of other cultures to practice their own religion and put their own life at risk.  The unity of the world depends on cohesiveness among individuals and the ability to see things from others perspectives.  We should disband the organization because it is a waste of money and doesnt accomplish anything.  Unesco is just a fancy word for a bunch of other organizations that have no business doing that work.  The use of public defenders should be mandatory to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone in a given case.  We should abolish this because it was established before the rise of the right to keep and bear arms and it has no bearing on crime. ",3.799999952316284,3.8446486
"Some people may be reluctant to spend money if their business is threatened.  Telemarketing is harmful to the general public because people are more likely to rely on the service rather than seek out original sources due to the high-pressure salesperson.  By banning telemarketing we will allow everyone to be more fair and equal to each other.  There is no regulation that allows for this kind of thing to be considered as legitimate or legal.  Telemarketing takes advantage of the unsuspecting public.   therefore they should be banned.  If it is banned telemarketing would be harmful to the economy.  If we ban telemarketing then there will be less people taking advantage of the services that are offered.  Telemarketing causes a lot of people to get sick or get worse.  its better to have a person look out for you in the long run.  It is very easy to get scammed by companies that offer telemarketing services.  It causes people with good intentions to commit crimes that they would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.  it is our duty as a society to punish such people.  Telemarketing is exploitative of those in society who are vulnerable to such tactics.  Its almost always a scam to get people to buy what they dont want to.  they dont get any real benefits.  Telemarketing is unfair to consumers since it doesnt help them in the real world.  Telemarketing is just a way of putting people further into debt in a way thats nearly impossible to recover from.  Telemarketing causes a lot of people to get sick.  Telemarketing does nothing to improve the quality of the products or services offered.  Telemarketing is unhelpful because it encourages people to take on more debt than they already are.  Telemarketing is often done by companies which abuse their marketing muscle, masking themselves in the mass market.  Telemarketing should be banned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  Telemarketing should be banned as it can result in people skipping out on important items in favour of cheaper ones that may not have been properly researched or tested.  Telemarketing is simply a crooked way of making money off of people who already have.   there is no good reason for people to spend hundreds of dollars on something they cannot afford.  Telemarketing is basically just a form of pre-discovery, meaning the person could be hiding something that could be used to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.  it's also a way of reverse  labeling and it's not always fair.  Telemarketing is a way of hiding from the problems that other solutions dont solve.  Telemarketing is a way of putting pressure on companies that have already started their business and this pressure should continue.  Telemarketing is very open to abuse in terms of religion.   it should be banned.  Telemarketing should be banned because the person or company doing the work isnt paid enough for it.  Telemarketing is not always an effective way of getting ahold of goods or services.  Telemarketing is a form of pre-selling that preys on the sale of a product.  we should ban them as it is not fair to sell your product and there is also less protection for the buyer.  We should ban telemarketing because it is unethical to use other peoples money for that purpose.  We should ban telemarketing because its a way to have a good influence in the lives of the people you work with.  We should ban telemarketing because there is no way for the buyer to know if the item was made locally or not.  We should ban telemarketing because its very easy for scammers to take advantage of people. ",4.400000095367432,4.024266
"We should legalize public nudity. First argument: there is no such thing as decency. Sometimes it's easy to forget that eventually we are nothing but animals. If we take a quick look at the animal kingdom we will see that animals have never never felt ashamed of their naked bodies. They have never felt the need to cover certain parts of their body up. This can teach us that the demand for what we today call decency is nothing but a completely random social construct and every link that people try to make between decency and morality is both ridiculous and oppressive. Another such evidence is that the concept of what's considered decent and what isn't has developed completely differently in different places and different times throughout the world. There is no definition of decency that has consistently lingered through time. In certain african tribes it is customary for women to walk around with their bare breasts out in the open, whereas in orthodox societies a woman that so much as exposes her hair is considered indecent. We would also like to to to shed light on the fact that in the absolute majority of cases it is mostly women that have been forced to withstand the most strictest standards of decency. Note how up until this very day, even in the most liberal of societies, a man that walks around in public without a shirt is like is often forgiven or like encountered with a lot more patience than a woman that would walk around not wearing a shirt. How can all of this be explained? Easily. We say that decency is a concept that was made up by the strong class in society, as a form of oppression to the weaker class. It's easy to understand that when we consider the muslim society and burkas for instance. The idea is that even if today it is no longer so and not necessarily effectively used as a means of oppression, and and even if it applies to to men and women alike, that is the source and the origin of this custom or this norm and there is absolutely no explanation that can be defended rationally. Second argument: a vital part, like, nudity is a vital part of the freedom of expression and there is no good enough justification to limit it. So this argument engages with the opposition in case they try to argue that irrespective of the origin of this norm, the fact is that today nudity you know disturbs people and therefore we should ban it to allow everyone access to the public sphere or something like that. We say that the public sphere, unlike the private sphere, is by definition a dangerous space in which you might encounter things that you will not like. We say that the mere fact that something bothers you is just not interesting in terms of justifying banning that thing. And up, and like, up until the point that you are able to prove that some objective damage has taken place, that just doesn't matter that it bothers you. There are plenty of people that are on the conservative side and they are really bothered by seeing people with that walk around with tattoos, or with a mahican hairdo. We say that they believe that it's a promiscuous behavior and immoral behavior and that it has a bad effect on their children. Does opposition really want to consider this as a good enough and like sufficient cause to ban people walking around in public with tattoos and mahican? We say like, what about people that are bothered by seeing gay couples kissing in the street? You see, the thing is that once you give weight to what bothers some of the people this necessarily means that you trample over the rights of others, and we believe that walking around naked is a completely legitimate form of expression that conveys a message, and perhaps even a very important criticism over the existing norms that are outdated in society. We believe that the true test for the level of commitment of a society in protecting the freedom of expression of its citizens is exactly at the point at which a certain form of expression bothers other people. That is exactly where it matters that we protect it. Third argument: really quickly, we think that if if there would be more people that walk around naked this will help a lot of other people overcome problems that they experience today with negative body image and insecurity. We say that the more that you get exposed to other naked bodies in all shapes and colors and forms, you understand that no matter how your body looks like there are plenty of other people just like you, and if they are not ashamed then you have nothing to be ashamed of. For all of these reasons we're very proud to propose.",4.266666889190674,4.4913554
"Economists estimated that the American Jobs Act would create nearly 2 million jobs--1. 9 million jobs. 
Obama claims that the American Jobs Act will create more than 13,000 education jobs in North Carolina. 
Most of all the president proclaimed that the American Jobs Act would pay for itself. 
That American Jobs Act is based on a simple, common sense idea: if you want to create jobs, create jobs. 
It is worth noting that the American Jobs Act uses the word ""support"" and not ""create"" when mentioning jobs. 
A good place to start is by demanding that Congress pass the American Jobs Act. 
That is why the American Jobs Act included new rounds of tax cuts for small businesses. 
In Delaware, it is estimated that the American Jobs Act will produce 1,700 local transportation jobs, 1,100 educator and first responder jobs, and numerous other related jobs. 
That's why the American Jobs Act includes $30 billion to support 400,000 education jobs nationwide. 
In Miami, protesters gathered at a congressman`s office, demanding that he support the American Jobs Act. 
Mr.  Obama has promised that the American Jobs Act will be fully paid for, but he has no detailed plan on how to do it. 
On top of that, the American Jobs Act will make crucial investments in California's infrastructure. 
President Obama failed to convince most of this group that the American Jobs Act would create good long-term American jobs even if the bill passes. 
While the president traveled, the White House released a report showing that the American Jobs Act would create at least 400,000 jobs in education. 
Analysts have said that the American Jobs Act, if passed, would positively impact economic growth in the country. 
The report also outlines the direct impact that the American Jobs Act would have underserved communities across the nation. 
Wall Street analysts estimated that adoption of the American Jobs Act would create between 1. 9 million and 2. 6 million jobs relatively quickly. 
The White House said that under the American Jobs Act, Mecklenburg County Public Schools would receive an estimated $3. 5 million for teacher jobs. 
The neighborhood stabilization fund -- the president proposed some more money for that in the American Jobs Act -- I believe about $15 billion. 
Democrats and Republicans have supported every kind of proposal that's in the American Jobs Act in the past. 
Our economy needs this type of help today, which means that the American Jobs Act needs to be passed today so that American businesses can benefit immediately. 
In his speech before Joint Session of Congress, Obama spelled out a program that he called the American Jobs Act. 
Contrast that to the American Jobs Act, which the president introduced to a joint meeting of Congress and has crisscrossed the country for weeks promoting. 
Outside economists, as you know, independent of the administration, have said that the American Jobs Act would add up to 2 percent to the GDP of this country by next year and would add up to 1. 9 million jobs. 
The White House says that if the American Jobs Act passes as written, Arkansas would receive nearly $1 billion and gain at least 12,400 jobs, most of which would be time-limited construction work. 
There's no question that the American Jobs Act will put more money in the pockets of working Americans, get police officers, teachers and firefighters back to work and put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges. 
Prominent, independent experts have said that the American Jobs Act could create 1. 5 million or more jobs, increase growth by as much as two percentage points next year, and lower the unemployment rate. 
Oleksiak pointed out that the American Jobs Act would help to lessen the impact of the $860 million public school funding cuts in Governor Tom Corbett's 2011-12 state budget. 
This president is on his game and has been since he gave that jobs speech. 
",2.5999999046325684,3.8560371
"We should abandon social media. In this debate, we're going to present you with two main arguments as to why social media is a net harm in the world and why we shouldn't be using it. The first is about social harms, and the second is about productivity harm. So on the social harms: we think that the way that social media has risen up in our society is a way in which people have become largely immersed and dependent upon it, that people quantify their social relationships through social media, that people categorize them through social media and they understand them through social media, and that the vast majority of people, if they want to have a social a social relationship with someone, they need to be connected in some way with them through social media, otherwise people end up being left behind because they simply don't adopt the newest trends, the newest forms of communication, the newest mediums of interpersonal relationship, and this means you get left by the wayside. So why do we think this is problematic? We think that this clearly dampens interactions that happen in real life, between two physical people, because there's there's just a significant difference between the interaction you can have on social media and the interaction you have in real life. Social media reactions are often much more vapid, for example, liking someone's post on facebook or retweeting something. This is a very vapid interaction that doesn't prepare you to have a meaningful conversation, a meaningful building of a social relationship between you and another person. There's also, for example, if you're messaging someone or commenting, these are things that are very different from trying to hold a conversation one on one. And because people become dependent on social media, there's a tradeoff between them being skilled in that form of communication and the form of communication that allows you to be an interpersonal human being, relating with people on one on one situations. We also think it quantifies interactions in a bad way. People tend to prioritize meaningless things, such as likes and follows, overbuilding deep relationships with a few people. And people that have only a hundred friends on facebook, or people that don't have a lot of posts or don't have a lot of retweets or interactions, all these things, these people are seen as outside of the norm and then people crave to be within the norm. People crave to have that type of following, that type of social media presence. But these aren't things that are intrinsically valuable. These aren't things that provide meaning and strong relationships in someone's life in the same way that fostering a relationship in which you truly know another person, and you can talk to them about anything with a few people, can be truly meaningful and uplifting in a person's life. We think that social media dampens those types of relationships, and we think that in those ways, it's problematic. So, on to productivity harms, we think there are a few of them. Firstly, because people end up posting things on social media that can literally never go away, we think that people are often denied job or other opportunities that can allow them to become more financially well-off, more socially well-off, and put them in a better stable situation in their life moving forward. We think that by not using social media, you don't set yourself up to this kind of public disgrace, public embarrassment, that social media can often provide. We also think that it is just a massive distraction. In your free time, you could be doing this in you can be spending your free time in a number of other more productive ways. You could spend it learning, you could learn it you could spend it being active, going outside, being a physical human being, or just building real physical connections with other people, and building memories. These are things that you just don't do on social media. And at work, these are also major distractions. Things that cost millions of dollars on the like whole social market, or the whole marketplace, in a country when people are spending time at work that they otherwise are supposed to be spending being productive, doing their labor, spending it on social media. Because it's harmful to both social interactions and productive capacities of people, we should abandon social media.",4.733333110809326,4.49407
"This house would ban telemarketing. What we mean by this is that campaigns that use the telephone and cold calling people to sell their products would no longer be allowed. You could obviously still have areas in which an individual has to call a certain number to make a purchase but you would not be able to specifically market using the telephone like product as we currently have in the status quo. Three main areas of clash, first on why this is just generally a really problematic way of attempting to sell things. I think what we have to recognize is that telemarketing relies on this idea that there are individuals who are going to be either tired enough or uninformed enough or don't have enough time to do their research to make a purchase at the moment that someone is calling their door. We think that it's actually really really coercive in that it basically tells people like look we're catching you in this situation in which maybe you're less comfortable maybe you're in the middle of a like a private matter or in the middle of your everyday life and we're going to use the opportunity to try and sell you something and we think that like even if this isn't something that is intrinsically bad insofar as there are many many or like legally bad insofar as there are many many ways for individuals to sell products in other ways especially with the invention of things like the internet we don't understand why it is necessary to have something like telemarketing which tries to playoff of individuals' weaknesses. We especially think that it gets worse when we recognize it compounds with preexisting things such as targeted advertisement we think that given that individuals are going to be bombarded with imagery of things they probably don't need but might have mentioned that they want either way we think it's problematic that they can also be targeted over the phone. Our second area of clash is just that it's annoying. We think that insofar as governments exist to protect the average citizen and we think that these protections can come in many forms not just in terms of security we don't think that there's anything that telemarketing accomplishes that other forms of sale cannot so we don't understand why it's like an unfair limitation on the market rather we think it's the government just being like look even if this isn't like personal to the safety of our citizens it's still something that brings them a significant amount of distrust and irritation so we might as well keep them from having to experience this and we think the problem is that even telemarketers don't like telemarketing when it happens to themselves. So and and given that this isn't something that we think is at a significant drop off in jobs insofar as these kinds of jobs just transferred to the other form of marketing that occurs we don't think there's actually any kind of real harm to stopping this as a practice and so the fact that it is like incredibly irritating to individuals and not something that anyone wants to deal with becomes incredibly important and outweighs the majority of anything else in this round because there aren't any harmful impacts on op's upside. So it makes it something that is essentially just like look like if there's a situation that sucks and you're able to change that situation without actually harming anyone else you probably ought change that situation. Finally though, we want to talk about the insecurity of telemarketing because we think that in a world where individuals are recording our voices and using them to access our bank accounts and other voice activated media in a world in which they are listening in conversations to listen to things like our car so like our cards we have to recognize that telemarketing corporations usually don't have the money to do things like secure the lines that they are using like make sure that nobody is recording the speech that is being said and so we think that something that happens that is really problematic on their side of the house is that telemarketing campaigns are always more easily hacked than the alternatives which poses a massive security threat to the individuals who might buy something via telemarketing. Insofar as that is true we think that we ought differ to the things that are more secure so that we don't take these kinds of risks in the first place. Proud to propose.",4.400000095367432,4.349549
"I will argue that we should ban surrogacy. In this debate we will be talking about responsibility. We all agree that as much as we would like to, we can't trust everyone to be the perfect citizen and some control is needed in those areas that call for it. Even if there are downsides to banning, it is sometimes the only viable alternative. When we realize that we can't trust people to be responsible, and when safety, health or other crucial issues are at stake, banning is effective and should be employed. Prohibiting makes products and activities less visible and available, and thus less harmful. Studies conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism show clear evidence that ""overall mortality rates declined precipitously with the introduction of Prohibition,"" despite widespread flouting of the law. One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests reached a similar result. Next, I would like to explain why this commercial surrogacy is a violation of human rights of women. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the negative side of Surrogacy. Regarding women. Surrogacy is wrong because it exploits women's bodies and reproductive rights. It creates greater health risks for women and children were factually untrue. With this in mind, I think we can safely say that this commercial Surrogacy is a violation of Human Rights of women and asked commercial surrogacy must be banned. Moving to the next topic, surrogacy is against indian ethos and moral values and should not be encouraged. Commercial surrogacy is a criminal offence in all states. In Vitro Fertilization and surrogacy can create a dangerous cocktail of tension, paranoia, and fear that can destroy a family. Commercial surrogacy breeds exploitation, abuse and misery. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that this commercial Surrogacy is a violation of Human Rights of women. In addition I claimed that commercial surrogacy breeds exploitation, abuse and misery. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should ban surrogacy. My opponent might claim that allowing surrogacy is preferable to stopping it. My question to him in that case would be, are you seriously prepared to put citizens in such risk? Thank you for listening. ",4.400000095367432,4.441838
"It is  important to have humans on the planet to help save the lives of many who are dependent on it.  It is a mission we all have an interest in and we should be willing to put that mission into fruition.  If all went to mars it would create an unstoppable weapon for the military.  It is so important to have a manned space established so that people can be comfortable and healthy in a group environment.  It is important to have humans involved in the exploration of the solar system, so that we do not leave the planet in the hands of the so-called scientists.  If we were to make a bold statement about human cloning, the entire world would follow suit.  Human missions have proven to be detrimental to humanity.  Human missions are very important to humanity.  we must have as many people as possible do this work to help us in this world.  We should subsidize the human mission to mars so that we can have enough scientists to explore the moon and not have to rely on our solar system.  Human missions to mars should be funded to ensure that the human element is included.  We should subsidize the human mission to mars to prevent the loss of life on earth.  We should subsidize the human mission to mars to prevent the destruction of our planet by global warming and other looming challenges.  We should subsidize the human mission to mars as it brings great scientific potential for the human intellect and technology development of autonomous cars and robo-car, thus we should fund it.  We should subsidize the human mission to mars because it would help us get there sooner rather than later.  The human mission to mars should be funded as it will allow more people to potentially contribute to the development of rockets and other technology that will make humanss impact on the world less predictable.  The human mission to mars should be subsidized as it will allow those from the public who wish to do so to come together and communicate in an open and transparent manner.  The human mission to mars should be funded as the country has a great interest in the long term health of the human being and this could be life saving in a number of ways.  The human mission to mars should be supported as it will save lives and allow people to be more productive in their lives as they are both important to the success of a company.  The human mission to mars should be subsidize as there is a significant scientific uncertainty that the human genome can adapt to any given situation.  Human missions could help to end global warming and help to save the planet.  Mars is an important step in human evolution.   it will allow us to have people on the ground to help us in the search for missing objects.  Human missions should be funded as this would ensure more people get involved.  The human mission to mars is so important to humanity, it should be subsidized.  Human missions are a legitimate form of exploring the solar system, it is human interest to know the effects of these missions.  Human mission to mars should be funded as it would help to defray the huge expenses the mission would entail.  The human mission to mars should be subsidize with international resources to enable young people to learn.  The human mission to mars should be subsidized to enable more people to participate in the exploration of mars.  We should subsidize the human mission to mars, as it would put human resources into developing nations that would otherwise not be able to help. ",4.4666666984558105,4.285387
"This leads to further poverty, food insecurity and natural disasters (including floods and landslides in case of illegal logging).  This leads to widespread famine, competition and violence, as well as unsafe abortions and infanticide.  And as families attempt to rebuild their lives when the conflicts end, there will be a further drain on scarce resources such as land and wood.  These environmental challenges and social conditions undermine sustainable socio-economic development in the region.  Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.  Frits schlingemann, director of unep's european office, said: ""the assessment demonstrated that in the worst case environmental stress and change could undermine security in the three south caucasian countries.  Irrigation is also highly inefficient; more than half of iran's renewable water used in agriculture is lost.  Degradation contributes to conflict, both violent and nonviolent, across africa.  ""there are many negative environmental consequences if a community has a large number of ash trees, and if they are removed due to the eab infestation. "".  It is the latter that causes loss of biological productivity and, consequently, a loss of livelihoods among the people that inhabit the drylands.  Efforts by debtor nations to service their foreign loans have hemorrhaged their economies, strained the social fabric, and led to environmentally disastrous logging and mining projects.  In addition to the risks posed by unexploded ordnance, the presence of toxic industrial chemicals or abandoned military materials can also present a risk to civilians and the environment.  It says environmental degradation is one of the root causes of the conflicts - alongside economic, political and social issues - as these natural resources are depleted.  Similarly, population displacement can lead to intense environmental degradation.  Additionally, environmental degradation can generate serious repercussions for regional security.  Habitat pressures which force animals into a small area can also contribute to resource depletion , as the animals consume a high volume of material in a small area.  Unless the climate is stabilized and natural ecosystems protected, other efforts to improve human security may be overwhelmed.  Besides, most degradation happens over a long time; making it hard for people to fully accept responsibility.  In southern sudan, for example, inappropriate farming methods caused severe soil degradation, and undermined the livelihoods of large numbers of people, which accelerated the country's slide into civil war.  Meanwhile, the loss of so called below ground diversity-for example worms, beetles and bugs-can have a direct impact on the health and fertility of the soils.  When the environment becomes polluted, it means that toxic substances have rendered it unhealthy.  Mining is also devastating to the integrity of the natural environment in appalachia, known for the blue ridge mountains and as a biodiversity hotspot .  Land degradation also poses growing social costs.  Environmental degradation threatens economic development and directly affects peoples' livelihoods.  5 land degradation can include desertification, deforestation, soil erosion, and salinization, among other natural and anthropogenic processes.  Acid rain, the popular term used to describe the deposition of acidic compounds, can result in considerable ecological destruction and affect human health as well.  The degradation is caused by the loss of ash trees, which are large maturing species that deliver environmental benefits along city streets, in parks, and along water corridors.  Caused mainly by pollution and overuse of resources, its main consequence is the constraint on means of livelihood.  Deforestation's most serious effects, especially for sustenance farmers and others living in poverty, include soil erosion and land degradation.  Land degradation is an obstacle to dealing with a range of environmental and developmental challenges, from climate change and biodiversity loss to food security and poverty alleviation. ",4.333333492279053,3.9710546
"The U. S.  is one of the few countries that does not subsidize its athletes. 
Many major schools are susceptible to the allegation their athletic programs enrich Caucasian coaches and administrators and subsidize white athletes in non-revenue sports by exploiting black athletes. 
Because the United States is one of the few nations where the government does not directly subsidize Olympic athletes. 
Most countries subsidize their athletes; the very least we can do is make sure our athletes dont get hit with a tax bill for winning. 
With Passaic among the lower-income areas, city officials said they may have to subsidize some athletes. 
Most countries subsidize their athletes, and Schumer said the very least the U. S.  can do is make sure that our athletes don`t get hit with a victory penalty. 
Proceeds from the JSU Athletic Golf Outing support the JSU Athletic Department and helps fund all 17 athletic teams and its athletes. 
At Washington and Lee University, the Board of Trustees, in response to a football academic cheating scandal in 1954, ended the subsidization of all athletes at the school and left Division I sports. 
Many countries subsidize their Olympic athletes, added Sen.  Chuck Schumer, D-N. Y.  ""The least we can do is make sure our athletes don't get hit with a tax bill for winning a medal,"" he said. 
Many parents who sign these monthly checks feel frustrated when a subsidized-scholarship athlete with limited financial means keeps their son or daughter on the sidelines. 
Athletic subsidies per athlete roughly doubled and the school accumulated more than $30 million in debt incurred to build new athletic facilities. 
Doting moms of Young athletes Launch exclusive sports crowdfunding website for athletes Supporting Athletes - Inspiring Dreams Soony Williams, Owner Fund My Athlete Two doting moms of young athletes have launched first ever sports online crowdfunding platform that is dedicated to athletes. 
Quest for Gold is an Ontario Government program that provides resources to athletes and coaches including mentoring, education subsidies, and athlete bursaries, and is also available to certified coaches and their athletes. 
After serving as an interim director of athletics on two different occasions, he saw no improvement in scholarship funding for the athletes. 
South Burnett Regional Council has recognised the athletes' efforts and have provided partial funding for junior athletes to compete. 
Women's Excellence Fund - This fund helps female athletes at UC's 11 women's athletic programs to pursue their athletic careers while receiving a college education. 
The trust fund has supported athletes with equipment and competition costs, including Commonwealth athlete Ceri Dallimore and Paralympian Gareth Duke. 
Approved a fundraiser sale of laundry detergent through Feb.  24 for the athletic department to raise money to fund transportation for athletes. 
For his part, Morgan said he would love some of the funding Australian athletes receive. 
The funding will benefit athletes who missed out on the Sports Excellence Scholarship, which was awarded to an inaugural batch of 66 athletes earlier this year. 
With no federal funding and no athlete member fees, events like the Polar Plunge are critical to the more than 12,000 Special Olympics athletes across Colorado. 
The foundation's grant based athlete recovery fund supports mountain athletes with rehabilitation after insurance runs out. 
Donations fund athlete uniforms, sports equipment, facility housing fees, coaches training and many more life changing programs for the athletes. 
Institutional funding per athlete at Michigan was $350 in 2011, compared to $0 in 2005. 
The organization should also require member institutions to guarantee athletic scholarships for up to five years and establish a heath care fund for athletes seriously injured on the field. 
Melnyk noted Pound should also be promoting better funding for amateur athletes in Canada because individual athletes are having to dig into their own pockets to compete. 
There is some funding available for athletes, but it s not a great deal and I will have to pay the full living costs, she said. 
",3.0,3.2403426
"I will argue that we should fight nationalism. The discussion today is about trust and acceptance. And I encourage you to join the celebration of different colors coming together, with people from all origins and backgrounds creating a unified, rich and strong society. The world is one global village, that is an undeniable reality. And in these circumstances, focusing on borders and nationalities is no longer useful. The unifying borderless world should be embraced instead. A few words now about politics and beyond, demonstrating the negative effects of nationalism. Regarding politics. Nationalism undermines support for redistribution by putting national identity before class identity. It is a dangerous political philosophy. It is evil and destructive. Rising nationalism threatens to raise barriers between nations. Russian President Vladimir Putin recalled that he has said more than once that ""nationalism is a very harmful, destructive thing for the integrity of the Russian state because it initially developed as a multinational country where many religions are represented."". Moving to another issue. Nationalism is the worst enemy of peace, and moreover, it is dangerous because it leads to war. Nationalism is a threat to world peace. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that nationalism undermines support for redistribution by putting national identity before class identity. I then mentioned that nationalism is the worst enemy of peace. I hope that by now you agree that we should fight nationalism. My opponent may argue that policy must raise stronger borders and prevent communities and economies from blending with each other. And I would like to ask you, John Smith, do you really believe in this idea of segregation and animosity? Thank you for listening. ",4.599999904632568,4.411054
"Whaling is wrong, contrary to its international obligations and should stop,.  Whaling in australian waters is illegal.  Whaling could pose a threat to population of the marine creature.  Scientific whaling is illegal.  Whaling should not be tolerated.  Whaling was illegal because it was not being conducted for purposes of scientific research.  Whaling in the southern ocean is wrong and unlawful.  The ban on whaling would benefit the southern ocean and make it safer for whales.  Whaling is outdated, horrendously cruel and unnecessary.  Whaling is no longer a necessary economic activity.  Whaling is unprofitable and a bad policy for the japanese people as well as for whales.  Whaling harms endangered species.  Whaling is unnecessarily brutal.  Whaling is damaging the commercial and political interests.  Whaling is illegal, the whales still face challenges.  Whaling is pointless and offensive.  Whaling is inherently cruel.  Whaling should stop.  Whales should not be killed or caught.  Such scientific whaling is untenable.  Will continue our efforts in the international whaling commission to strongly oppose commercial and so-called 'scientific' whaling, uphold the global moratorium on commercial whaling, and promote whale conservation. "".  Whale hunting is cruel and inhumane.  Whaling is entirely unnecessary.  Whaling is not a good idea.  Rni r sigursson, chairman of the althingi's foreign affairs committee, said today on his facebook page that ""whaling is damaging the commercial and political interests of icel and.  Whaling would lead to a new decline in population.  Whaling is wrong.  Whaling is now banned in most countries.  Whaling is still a serious threat to endangered whales.  Whaling is illegal here.  Whaling should end, and that's our intention with international case.  Old whale hunt should stop as it was not scientific and produced little actual research.  The strongest and most practical argument against whaling is that not only is it cruel, unethical and ecologically damaging, it is also economically unsustainable.  Whaling is illegal in these waters.  The annual ""scientific"" whale hunt in the southern ocean sanctuary is illegal.  Whaling is neither sustainable or responsible.  Whaling is unsustainable.  Whaling is morally wrong.  Whaling is unnecessarily brutal.  Whaling may have been a leading cause of the decline of the californian condor.  Whaling is not necessary, it is cruel and it has nothing to do with science.  Whaling is morally wrong and only 'legal' because the japanese falsely claim they're doing it for research.  Whaling was an example of mass murder rather than a commercial operation.  Whaling activities undermine these worldwide efforts to conserve whales.  Whaling is inhumane.  Whaling is not a good thing.  Whaling is increasingly seen as unacceptable.  Whaling in the southern antarctic waters is ""pointless and offensive"" to many new zealanders and reiterated a call to end the practice.  Whaling was ""an extremely dangerous business.  Whaling is unnecessary and ""barbaric"" animal cruelty that also poisons consumers (via elevated mercury levels.  Unrestricted whaling could lead to extinction, and limits should be applied to ensure ""long-term continuity of the business.  The whaling must stop because it wasn't scientific.  That its whaling is unacceptable to the world community.  Whaling for food threatens endangered species.  The whaling carried out in the southern ocean is ``cruel and barbaric, a gross sadistic perversion.  Whaling was in ""flagrant violation"" of international law.  Whale hunting is abhorrent.  Whaling itself is unethical.  Whaling should be stopped.  Whaling was illegal because it was not conducted for research purposes.  Scientific whaling is merely commercial whaling by another name and opposes all commercial whaling as inherently cruel, unnecessary and unsustainable.  The whaling program in the southern ocean must end because it is not scientific.  Whale hunt was illegal under international law.  Whaling should end.  Whaling in the great southern ocean is unlawful.  Whaling in the southern ocean is illegal. ",4.666666507720947,4.4617834
"It would create massive amounts of waste if we tried to extract all the carbon we could possibly have saved.  Hydrocarbons are very expensive to extract and cause a lot of pollution.  they also have a large carbon footprint which is very wasteful of the planet.  Hydrocarbon exploration is dangerous in that it could be exploited by terrorist organizations to bring about world endangering events.  There is a danger in the increased damage that can be caused by the injection of hydrocarbons.  We should not go into the ocean because it could have significant consequences in the long term if we cannot prevent global warming.  We should not spend billions to find out if there is a possibility of finding a way to restore the ocean or save the whales.  In the extreme case of exxon, the company is responsible for creating the worlds largest remaining oil reserves and is actively seeking to reduce their production.  It is extremely risky to explore these areas and have so little scientific benefit to give us any information.  It is extremely important that we limit the amount of fossil fuels that can be used to power our economy.  Hydrocarbon exploration is dangerous as it can be used to cause environmental damage.  Hydrocarbon exploration can be dangerous because it leads to the extraction of the hydrocarbon from the ground or in the water.  it is very unlikely to have this as a viable source of energy in the future.  Hydrocarbon exploration is a very risky business model that has resulted in over-exploration of the planet.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration to ensure that oil doesnt get into the ground or water sources.  it is very dangerous to have such a large quantity of fossil fuels in the world.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration because it is unethical to extract resources from the poorest of society.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration because we don't know enough about the chemistry of the earth to be sure it isn't damaging.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration to prevent the extinction of the human race.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration because there is no real scientific reason to keep digging up and risk the destruction of the ecosystem for short term gains.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration because its not safe to not leave any fossils behind.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration because it is a way of putting the worlds resources in the pockets of multinational corporations which benefit from cutting costs.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration because it is very expensive to extract and it does not seem to be helping anything.  Hydrocarbon exploration causes the release of large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, which is bad for the climate.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration since all of the chemicals it is made with is highly combustible and has resulted in the death of many people.  it is also very expensive.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration because there is still a lot of oil in the ground and it would take the chance to clean up and improve the environment.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration since the risks are so high when it comes from terrorist or criminal sabotage.  it could also have significant negative consequences in the long term.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration to make sure that the money spent on exploration is put to better use such as medical.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration because we do not know enough about it.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration because it could be used to make money.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration to make sure that the earth is not overpopulated.  We should limit hydrocarbon exploration to reduce the risk of leakage from the oil industry. ",4.333333492279053,4.1008377
"After banning algorithmic (algo) trading in micro- and mini-contracts in commodities with effect from January 1, the commodities market regulator, the Forward Markets Commission (FMC), has issued guidelines for regulation of algorithmic trading in the commodity futures market. 
Regulation Automated Trading is a proposed US regulation that seeks to regulate algorithmic trading on exchanges. 
These regulations on algorithmic trading would similarly inform those who employ trading strategies that use algorithms and ensure that the trading activity that flows from those algorithms complies with their obligations under the Commodity Exchange Act. 
Sebi has implemented some of the world's strictest regulations on algorithmic trading, requiring approval for individual algorithms. 
Other issues include patterns used in the international practice to regulate algorithmic trading and, specifically, high-frequency trading. 
Overall it is found that algorithmic trading has improved liquidity and enhanced the informativeness of quotes. 
The statistical analysis of data has generally shown that algorithmic trading has benefited market quality. 
Sebi also said there was no plans to ban algo trading,but said that brokers should put in appropriate risk management systems for these types of trades. 
New rules have been introduced which prohibit disruptive algorithmic trading techniques which manipulate market prices (Cadwalder, 2015). 
The adopted RTS will supplement the requirements set out in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive on algorithmic trading for both investments firms and trading venues. 
The commission is also planning to frame rules to regulate algo trading, which will fix the eligibility criteria for traders to obtain registration. 
The regulator has already banned algo trading in all micro and mini contracts as the benefits of algo trading in these contracts were pocketed by only large traders. 
For example, Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission is currently proposing new regulations for algorithmic trading systems. 
Securities market regulator SEBI will consult every possible stakeholder before taking a final call on the regulations regarding algorithmic trading (algo)/high frequency trading (HFT). 
Among the new measures are rules which attempt to reign in high frequency trading and impose tighter regulations on algorithmic traders. 
Four years on from the crash, new regulations covering algorithmic trading and HFT are beginning to be introduced across many jurisdictions. 
Algo-trading rules haunt market: Plans for initial public offerings by the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and BSE have come under a cloud amid a planned Sebi crackdown on algorithmic trading. 
The capital market regulator will also consider imposing restrictions on algorithmic trading and reduce the cost of investing in equity mutual fund schemes. 
Regulators from Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and India also shared their experience of regulating algorithmic and high-frequency trading, says Sebi. 
A Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) discussion paper on regulating algorithmic trading released last week has made market participants anxious. 
The SEC should not roll back the technology clock or prohibit algorithmic trading, but we are assessing the extent to which specific elements of the computer-driven trading environment may be working against investors rather than for them. 
Mumbai: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) is planning to impose restrictions on algorithmic trading by introducing a congestion charge for a prescribed slab that will be levied on traders. 
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is pushing back against Commodity Futures Trading Commission efforts to regulate algorithmic trading, invoking recent statements by both President Donald Trump and CFTC Acting Chair J.  Christopher Giancarlo. 
The country was also working on regulations and trading systems to establish a nationwide emissions trading scheme, Li said. 
It can be assumed that algorithmic market participants were quite active during the relevant period. 
Olson noted that algorithmic traders continue to index oil and gas companies to crude oil prices. 
The move aims to enhance the supervision on securities and futures market, regulate programmed trading behavior, safeguard market order and guarantee the legitimate interests of investors. 
Gartner expects that algorithmic business will create even greater levels of disruption and new industries. 
",2.799999952316284,3.6533606
"We should limit hydrocarbon exploration.  So by this we mean to say that governments should ban any companies from drilling in specific areas or otherwise being involved in commercial or in environmental exploration.  Three arguments for why we should limit this.  The first is that this is environmentally destructive.  Right now, there's a lot of deforestation and deforestation in the developing world.  We think that it's more environmentally destructive to have to destroy forests and destroy rain forests in order to extract natural gas and oil from underneath the Earth's surface rather than to have to do it in a more environmentally destructive way when it is done in a less environmentally destructive way.  But secondly, we think that this is a form of environmental destruction.  Realize that the environment is not something sacred.  It's not something that we have an obligation to maintain.  It's not something that we, as individuals, have an obligation to keep in pristine, beautiful, pristine condition while we still have a business interest in it.  We think that it's important to preserve the environment as much as possible, to make sure that it's protected, to make sure that companies aren't able to pollute it or destroy it with things that are dangerous to their business.  This is something that we think is important to making sure that people have a clear interest in the environment and one of their own.  The final argument is that we think this will lead to more resource conflicts in areas where it's natural, like in places like north dakota, where there is already a shortage of natural gas and oil.  Because now, you're going to be able to find natural gas and oil in almost any area, especially in rural and low-income communities.  But now, rather than having to be somewhere in like north dakota, you're going to have to be somewhere near a refinery or a natural gas company or something like that.  And we think that this is going to make it more likely that things like the like natural gas company that you're going down in north dakota will be able to get their energy rather than something like the company that you happen to be in.  So, we think that on their side, it makes it more likely that these countries are going to have a conflict.  And, indeed, they're already having a conflict.  Look, there is a lot of agreement that exists regarding things like the environment and environmental protection.  But what this means is that we think that this will lead to a conflict but it will be one that is ultimately not very very pleasant.  We think that it's more likely that this is going to be a conflict than one in which, say, states like france cease to develop and that these countries are going to have to develop more, that they're going to have to do things like get more investment, and that's going to be very difficult for them because now there's a cost to doing so.  And we think that that cost is going to be passed down with one's own health and one's own safety.  So for these reasons, we should limit hydrocarbon exploration. ",4.199999809265137,3.952768
"The CEO said one solution to the growing problem of unemployment is subsidizing education and vocational training courses. 
The funding of vocational education can be finally settled after the adoption of the new Law ""On Vocational Education"". 
The NTA also provides for the funding of vocational education and training and advises the Minister of Education on all matters concerning vocational education and training. 
The Smith-Hughes National Vocational Education Act of 1917 allowed for funding of vocational education in public high schools. 
The budget does not include subsidized costs for Maine Vocational Regional 11 because of a change in the funding formula for Career and Technical Education . 
Financing technical vocational education and training (VET) is costlier than general education due to its technical nature. 
Money from the millage will go into the vocational education budget, which is used to fund the Technical Education Center. 
Governments earmarked 25. 64 billion yuan for secondary vocational schools, accounting for 77. 2 percent of the total subsidies for secondary vocational education. 
Although the state had increased funds for higher education over the years, this had to fund universities, technical and vocational education training (TVET) colleges and skills education training authorities. 
Erasmus+ for VET The VET sector within the Erasmus+ programme succeeds the Leonardo programme which previously provided European funding for vocational education and training (VET). 
A proportion of this budget is allocated to provide funding for vocational education and training (VET) projects. 
Education Department figures show government-subsidised enrolments in vocational education and training rose to 226,000 in the three years to 2013 - an increase of more than 64,000. 
Students, staff, and leaders of tertiary institutions are challenging Education Minister Chris Hipkins, to develop a new funding model for vocational education and training. 
It also calls for sufficient funding for Technical Vocational Education and Training or TVET in Technical Vocational Institutes run by the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority with P6. 7 billion, also from Salceda's original version. 
An additional $57 million was announced as part of the Department of Education's ""Smart and Skilled"" funding for vocational education and training (TVET) courses. 
Government loans, training subsidies, vocational education and training at high school, and more short courses were other suggestions. 
As of the 2008-2009 academic year, Hong Kong had been subsidizing vocational courses for early school-leavers. 
According to the description: ""Tenders are invited for Research into the Financing of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) in the Pacific. 
Under Professor Noonan's plan, the federal government would continue to fund higher education, extending subsidies to sub-degree pathway programs and possibly the higher levels of vocational education and the states would continue to fund other vocational education courses. 
Our first three kids tried vocational training through community college and Job Corps, a government-subsidized vocational training program. 
A major need is for funding to expand technical and vocational education at the high school, which voters approved last year. 
The Heher Commission's report on funding tertiary education has recommended that public technical and vocational education and training (TVET) education be fee-free. . .  Currently, the Department of Higher Education and Training is meant to fund TVET students at an 80:20 ratio. 
The school bond election that we are now considering includes funding for Vocational Technical Education space that our schools have not had for some time. 
The federal government has been funding vocational-education programs since World War I, almost 50 years before the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 got the feds involved in the remainder of pre-college education. 
There are serious concerns funding cuts to the vocational education and training (VET) system have left it in no shape to meet that challenge. 
Working with secondary educational institutions to create curricula and funding for vocational training will help accelerate the development and employability of future workers. 
Reduced government funding, vocationalism and using new, advanced technologies in the classroom are some of the challenges facing higher education in the 21st century. 
",3.2666666507720947,3.7755327
"Today's motion to deconstruct the two-party system and abolish it is mechanistically complicated but philosophically simple. We stand opposed to the notion that two parties should have a monopoly on the political operations of a single nation. Given this, we have two points of of support. First, diversity of choice and secondly, the ability for a legislature to be more responsive and more actionable to the needs of its populace. We think that the two-party system, going under the first point of diversity of choice, fails to reflect the will of the populace for a number of reasons. First, there is a lack of choices in the status quo, so it is unlikely that I'm going to find a good proxy for my individual political beliefs. I might be somebody who is, say, opposed to gun control, but in favor of reproductive rights. This makes it very difficult for me as an american citizen, therefore, to choose a party that actually reflects my individual political preferences and as a result, a large number of people are left out of the conversation. Going off of this, we think that more broadly speaking, moderates or centrists are largely left out of the political conversation as a result of their inability to meaningfully decide which one of the parties is a better proxy for their individual preferences. Secondly, we think that mismanagement of individual parties makes it very difficult to actually solve the root causes of this mismanagement when there's only one other choice that has a very different ideology from the party you previously supported. It is difficult to support one party that is being mismanaged, whether that be for reasons pertaining to corruption or just poor campaigning, and jump ship to a different group. As a result, it creates inefficient political systems. Thirdly, it's notable that parties survive by being preferable to their opponent, which makes them very unresponsive to minor shifts in ideology amongst the populace. For example, corporatism amongst democrats in the united states is very rarely addressed in any meaningful way because the comparative is always republicans. We think in a multiparty system it is much more likely that these like minor preferences amongst the voting bodies are going to be responded to in efficacious matter. We solve for these issues quite clearly because we create a system that has more than two parties and solve for these root harms of the two-party system, giving people more choices in their voting patterns. Secondly, we believe that the legislatures in countries that adopt this system will be much more actionable upon the individual opinions of their cities. Firstly, we think that this is important because dynamic governments reflect the preferences of their citizens best. Opinions change over time so the status quo is rarely going to be the best possible version of the political system. But furthermore, we think the dynamic changes and frequent legislative action stimulate discourse on topics that aren't discussed as fervently otherwise. So why do we get more legislative action on our side of the house? We think that gridlock exists in the status quo largely because there is an incentive to be oppositional in a two-party system. For example, republicans had to oppose obamacare from the very beginning because any successes that would have been found within obamacare would have been political points lost by republicans. That means that systems that are complicated and politically contentious are always doomed to fail, even if they are systems that would necessarily be beneficial to the general populace. We think that coalitions allow an incentive to actually cooperate amongst parties because you can get mutual credit for a successful policy. If there were, say, five parties in congress at the time that obamacare was being discussed, multiple parties can join in on the conversation and actually engage in creating a healthcare system that would have met up with the ideologies of multiple people across the political spectrum, and thus increase the likelihood of the program's success. We think given this, we have significantly better outcomes for individual citizens on our side of the house. Proud to propose.",4.199999809265137,4.2582335
"The more research that is done, the higher the chances to understanding and possible curing diseases.  The research of stem cells is a great advance for humanity to find the cure to several deadly diseases.  Stem cell research can help find cures to lots of diseases.  Stem cell research is essential in combating illnesses like cancer and moving forward to find cures and treatment.  Subsidizing embryonic stem cell research will allow for continued study into life saving treatments such as parkinson's disease, cancers and other life debilitating conditions.  Through stem cell research we could find a cure for many diseases.  These cells are unique in that they are undifferentiated, allowing them to be used in all parts of the body.  this means they have the potential to cure hundreds of diseases.  This research is very innovative and has already been very succesful.  This research will lead to many developments in the treating and curing of a variety of diseases.  Supporting embryonic stem cell research is important because it is the future of medicine and it can help scientists to find new cures for diseases.  Subsidizing embryonic stem cell research can improve the quality of the research and lead to more developments in cures.  This will help to establish cures for disabilities and diseases.  The costs of doing embryonic stem cell research is staggering.    these are important lab tests by scientists and we should definitely be subsidizing these tests.  Subsidising would ensure faster results in research bringing about much needed cures for diseases that are difficult to treat.  Subsidizing this powerful tool to extend human life should be a top priority for preventing and treating major diseases.  We should really put some more money on embryonic stem cell research, because it's the only way to  find a cure for several  illnesses.  Stem cell research is our best hope in finding cures.  Stem cell research may be the key to curing many diseases.  Stem cell research may hold the keys to curing cancer.  We need to subsidize embryonic stem cell research because of the promise of huge breakthroughs for modern medicine.  Stem cell research could hold the key to curing a myriad of diseases which currently plague us.   imagine being able to cure alzheimer's or cancer.   the solution could lie in stem cell research.  Stem cell research shows great promise in healing today's most tragic injuries and illnesses such as paralysis and cancer.  Stem cell research has been proven to help people with parkinson's disease, and other major illnesses.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research if we want to continue to advance in medicine.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because we can learn so much from it.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because it will help many people as long as it is successfully done.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because it may yield promising results that have the potential to unlock new scientific discoveries.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research so that it can continue research into finding solutions to complex medical needs.  Stem cell research can help to cure a wide variety of diseases.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because it is necessary for the betterment of the human race.  we may find cures for aging, diseases, or create new stronger genes.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research since it could help people in the future suffering from incurable diseases.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research and hope that it leads to great medical breakthroughs.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because it will help with medical research and hopefully help to find cures for diseases and sicknesses. ",4.4666666984558105,4.3480535
"It is unfair that the rich have an edge over the poor in court, you should not be able to avoid prosecution because you have money, you have the means.  Sanctions are expensive and often result in usury by the people taking the brunt of these costs.  It is really unfair that one country should not be able to have all the advantages.  By targeting a countrys economic status we are essentially saying that it is no longer a priority and we should get on with other priorities.  Sanctions are too punitive and lead to an increase in crime.  The use of sanctions is morally proer of the people in question.  Economic sanctions are often used to extract cash from poor countries.  Sanctions are a form of discrimination that denies opportunities in education and the workplace, that would allow someone to gainful employment regardless of status, it is reverse descrimination.  Economic sanctions should be ended because no country should be punished for not having a great potential.  Economic sanctions should be applied to target the big corporations responsible for creating dangerous conditions for people.  Economic sanctions should be ended because they have a way of punishing people for non-financial crimes such as shop opening and other non-financial offences.  Economic sanctions should be used to help set our economy back on a solid financial footing.  Sanctions should be used as a way of bringing to light the issues of corruption in the country.  Sanctions are an unfair form of punishment for countries that do not need them.  Economic sanctions should be ended as the burden on the government coffers is unsustainable in the longer term.  Economic sanctions should be ended because it can give rise to dangerous political ideas.  The use of economic sanctions should be ended as it is unfair to use other peoples money against them.  They should be used as a way to punish people for what they are capable of doing and not base on how much money they have.  The use of economic sanctions is iniquitous.  we should end it now so that we do not have to keep bringing it up.  We should not use economic sanctions because it's unfair to use other people's money for that purpose.  The use of sanctions will be viewed as a form of discrimination against third parties, which have the capacity to be discriminatory against the third parties as well.  Sanctions are sometimes used to make important cases against corruption in society.  Economic sanctions are too harsh when the people who are accused of a crime are innocent.  Economic sanctions are unfair as the money could be put to better use such as medical.  The use of economic sanctions is strongly linked to a countrys place to be before the use of force is allowed.  We should end the use of economic sanctions as it is very likely the reason why so many people are poor.  We should end the use of economic sanctions as there is no real benefit in terms of improving trade or allowing for example, better education.  We should end the use of economic sanctions as they punish people again and again for being poor and the poorest of them in society.  We should end the use of economic sanctions because it is unfair to single people out.  We should end the use of economic sanctions as no country should be punished for another countrys economic problems.  The use of economic sanctions is basically a form of hate speech against the entire ethnic and religious groups that make up a countrys population and therefore should be banned. ",4.199999809265137,4.202707
"We should end bailouts.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the state should stop providing financial aid to a company if that company is failing.  We think that, for instance, when the european union collapsed in the early nineties, the european union was one of the few countries in the world that didn't collapse, and that's why it's one of the few countries in the world.  We think that it would be much preferable to live in a world where, say, the US and european countries were providing financial aid to one another, because that would mean that the US would be providing financial aid to a country that would otherwise be on the brink of collapse.  For instance, when the US and european countries decided to invade iraq in two thousand one, the other countries in the middle east didn't have the ability to do that because of US protection.  So we think that if you were to have a system like that, where the US and european countries, instead of invading one another, just provide financial aid to one another, would ultimately lead to more cooperation, and ultimately to more stability.  Our first argument is that we think that the state should try to stabilize a failing economy.  We see that, for instance, when american companies move their headquarters, when the european union decides to step in and ban a country, we think it's clear that the US and european countries will step in to help that country.  We see that in the US, the european union has stepped in to ban the use of soft power in iraq, and that in the same way that the european union has banned soft power in the state.  We see that the european union has been incredibly helpful to russia in the past, and that it would be even more helpful to russia if it didn't have it.  We think that the european union has a role in stabilizing the economy in europe, and that the US and european countries should be encouraging that economy to move up.  Our second argument is that we think that the EU should be promoting growth and that the US and european countries are anti-growth.  So, the european union is a union of like forty million people.  It's the largest economic grouping in the world, and it's dominated by the european union.  The other side is correct that the european union has had some problems in the past.  The european bloc has a tendency to overreact to economic problems, and it's easy for countries to become rich and powerful once they've got rich.  We think that this is bad because, first of all, it's hard for countries to gain new economic footing once they've gained economic power.  We think that the reason that the european union hasn't done more to help people in the middle east is because the US and european countries don't want to help those people.  We think that the US and european countries should step in to help these people, and we're okay with putting restrictions on trade and on capital flows to prevent people from being able to access these markets.  We think that the european union would ultimately be less growth-oriented than the US and european countries, and that this would ultimately hurt the economies of those countries.  The other side of this is that we think that the EU should give preference to its own citizens.  The other team's going to tell you that the EU doesn't give preference to the US or european countries, but this is actually true.  The other team is going to tell you that the EU doesn't give preference to the US or european countries, but this is actually true.  The other team has to choose between the US and european countries.  We think that the US should choose the european country with the highest growth potential, and the european country with the highest growth potential, and that's what we're going to do.  So, ultimately, we think that this would be more fair for all of europe's citizens.  Our third and final argument is that we think that the EU should promote democratic will.  So, for instance, the EU has a large amount of democracy in the world.  In the US and european countries, for instance, there's a popular vote every year for which country should be in the EU.  We think that the EU should reflect the wishes of the people in europe and the wishes of europeans.  We think that the european people have a right to determine who gets to be a part of the EU and who doesn't, and we think that the US and european countries should respect those wishes.  In the same way",3.6666667461395264,4.0346837
"We should increase the use of artificial insemination.  So, in the status quo, it's basically the case that you need a woman's body to produce sperm, and then the sperm gets into the woman's uterus and she doesn't have any children.  And the reason for this is that the ovum that was created by the woman has now contained within it a little bit of the sperm, and it's been growing more and more of a part of her body for years.  So now the question is, can we get more of a complete human being, without sacrificing some of the compatibility of the woman's body and the sperm that was originally inside her? We think that the answer is absolutely yes.  Yes, because it is the case that, when you artificially inseminate a woman, you're giving her a complete human being, and you're giving her a part of the human being that she didn't have before.  And so with this in mind, we have three arguments for why we should increase the use of artificial insemination: the first is that it's just safer.  We think that when you artificially inseminate a woman, you're giving her a small chance of having a child, of having a healthy, fulfilling life, and you're giving her a little bit more time to prepare.  So, with this in mind, we think that the women who are being inseminated should be given some time to make the decision about whether or not they want to have children, and we think that the time frame, the window in which you give these women some time to make the decision, is actually very important.  We think that, in the case of insemination, when you're giving them some time to make the decision, you're giving them the opportunity to change their mind.  We think that in the case of insemination, you're giving them the opportunity to do things like get an ultrasound, or to have an abortion, or to have the baby, to have a different kind of health care, to have a different kind of life, to have a different kind of family, to be with that baby, to be with the baby, to be with their baby, and we think that it's very important that you give them the opportunity to make these decisions because in the end, if it seems like the baby is the most healthy, the most capable, or the most suitable, we think it's very likely that the baby will be better off in a world where you're able to create a new human being, rather than just a cloned version of an existing human being.  We also think that in the end, in the case of insemination, the process is less painful and more natural.  We think that the process of insemination is less painful and less destructive than the process of getting an abortion, and so we think that it's something that is more likely to be the case that the baby will be born healthy, have a better quality of life, and that in the end, you're giving more time to this person to make the decision, rather than giving them a quick rush of the egg, which might have been the case in the status quo, but it's better for the baby.  Finally, we think that in the end, in the case of insemination, there's less risk to the woman's health and the baby's health.  So, with all of these reasons in mind, we should increase the use of artificial insemination.  Thank you. ",4.599999904632568,4.059425
"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should subsidize wikipedia. We are going to talk about financial issues, but not only about them. In the current status-quo, we accept that the question of subsidies goes beyond money, and touches on social, political and moral issues. When we subsidize wikipedia and the like, we are making good use of government money, because it carries benefits for society as a whole. It is our duty to support it. Subsidies are an important policy instrument. They provide governments with the means through which to pursue industrial development and ensure the livelihoods of their citizens. A few words now about education. Let's think about education. I did not spend years in educational institutions in order to earn a degree, but instead took a different path. Still, using these copyrighted material on Wikipedia is beneficial, educational, transformative, and importantly, not harmful to the copyright owner's commercial rights. Having students create Wikipedia entries would be a great classroom assignment for creative university lecturers. A peer-reviewed study by Brigham Young University political scientist Adam Brown validates Wikipedia as a reliable place to get a political education. The Harvard Guide to writing tells students that Wikipedia is a good source of quick information or a good way to settle a bet. I hope I managed to convey that we should subsidize wikipedia. You will possibly hear my opponent talk today about different priorities in subsidies. he might say that subsidies are needed, but not for wikipedia. I would like to ask you, John, if you agree in principle, why don't we examine the evidence and the data and decide accordingly? Thanks for your attention. ",4.599999904632568,4.171988
"We should abolish no-knock warrants.  In the status quo, individuals who do not have a warrant and do not have a reason to remain silent are a) harmed by the inaction of law enforcement; b) harmed by the fact that they cannot respond in any meaningful sense to a knock on their door or otherwise communicate with one another because they do not have a reason to remain silent.  Because of this, we would propose the following model: that no new warrants will be issued and that all warrants will only be issued in cases of necessity.  A few reasons why this is a good idea: first, on government obligation.  We think that there is a fundamental obligation to the people to protect their rights.  The reason for this is that rights come from god, they come from nature, and we think that if we fail to uphold them, we are failing to our responsibility as a government to our people.  Secondly, let's talk about the duty of the police.  We think that it is incredibly important that the police are able to act in a way that they see fit to help the people.  We think that individuals, no matter what they say or do, are being watched by the police.  We think that if you do something bad, you're going to be watched by the police.  We think that if you lie, you're lying to the police, and we think that lying is something that we ought not be watching.  The police can lie to get you to leave, they can lie about you and we think that that is fundamentally unjust.  But thirdly, we think that the obligation exists to the public to respond to actions of government.  So, we think that no matter what you do, you're going to have an obligation to the public to do something about it, because the police are public actors and have a responsibility to the public to act in a way that is just and that is not being seen to be unjust.  Now, I want to talk about the difference between warrants and police action.  We think that warrants are only important in one respect: that they can be used against people that are guilty of certain crimes and we think that this is something that is important.  But we think that the fact that it's a warrant is no indication that it's being used in a meaningful way and, as such, we think that individual needs to have a meaningful impact in order to justify a warrant.  There's no reason that someone who is not guilty of anything should be able to get away.  Now, why do we think that this is a fundamental difference between the way that the police behave and the way that the courts behave? We think that judges, in the same way that police officers are able to lie and do other illegal things, are able to act in ways that are unjust.  We think that if you were to have a judge decide whether something was a lie, we think that that would be a decision that you need to have.  You need to have a judge decide whether something is true or false and we think that that should be left up, not just for the police to decide.  We think that the only way to get meaningful change in these particular cases is for the judge to say yes, this thing is true or false and we think that that's a reasonable thing to say and that the judge is the one entity that can decide whether something is true or false and why is this important? We think that if you lie and you want to get a warrant, then you need to lie to the police to get them to lie about you.  But if you lie and you're not lying about something that's true, we think that you ought be able to get a warrant.  And if you lie and you're not lying about something that's false, we think that you ought be able to get a warrant.  This leads me to my second point, about the independent point.  We think that this leads to much higher punishment for people lying than for people lying and getting a conviction.  We think that people who lie often and don't lie very much are much less likely to be punished than people who lie and get a conviction.  What we see is that judges, in cases of necessity, are very likely to say yes, this is a lie and not to put you in jail, even if it is something that they think",3.2666666507720947,4.064324
"I will argue that we should abandon the euro. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. The Euro is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. Now I will present some claims explaining why the strong euro is becoming a problem for the economy. I will also discuss other issues. Let's think about the economy. The euro has failed to provide any uplift in the region's deeply flawed economic models. The OECD highlighted concerns that the euro will remain a danger for the world economy. France's finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, has warned that the euro is dangerously vulnerable to a global downturn many believe is now under way. Former Greek prime minister George Papandreou has warned that exiting the euro would lead to hyperinflation and a 20 % reduction in GDP. If we look elsewhere for an example, George Osborne warned that the prospect of Greece crashing out of the euro is damaging economies across Europe. Let's explore another idea. The euro is the problem and not debt. It is harmful because it has favoured big banks at the expense of small investors. Some years later, the UK Treasury, under Gordon Brown as the chancellor of the exchequer, conducted a series of studies, which found that the euro was a bad idea overall. M&G Investments' government bond expert Mike Riddell has warned that the euro could weaken further as german sovereign bond yields turn negative. In the same poll 83 per cent expressed concerns that the euro would trigger unwarranted price increases. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that the strong euro is becoming a problem for the economy. In addition I claimed that the euro is the problem and not debt. In light of my points, I believe that we should abandon the euro. My opponent today may point to the advantages of the euro and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thank you for listening. ",3.799999952316284,4.327791
"We should abolish primary elections. Primary elections represent one of the worst features of our democracy. They are anti-democratic, are not representative of the general election and, ultimately, play to the extremists within a population. But because we think the united states' election system is so fundamentally flawed, we would support the following model: that the united states should adopt a parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems typically do not have primary elections, as you don't really vote in politicians as much as you vote for the party, who then nominates a particular individual. Three reasons why this is a good idea: first, on gridlock. The current system we have of two parties, where only a single individual can win in any given election, is incredibly problematic. A few reasons why: first, we think that two parties means that there can be winners and losers that are very easily defined. Now this is very problematic. If the democrats are trying to pass a bill, it is always good for the republicans to try to block that bill. This is because a loss for the democrats in terms of faith from the public is always good for the republicans, even if they lose faith as well, as long as they lose less faith. We think that a system which incentivizes sabotage and incentivizes pushing the government to a halt when the other party's in power is very problematic. The parliamentary system does not do this. If I want to sabotage another party, I can. This will hurt both my party and their party, but a third, fourth, or fifth party will then fill in that void, rather than me gaining everything that the other party loses. Essentially, our system is a zero-sum game which inherently leads to gridlock, while the parliamentary system is not. Additionally, we think that the current system is all about getting a super majority, winning as many elections as possible. The parliamentary system is largely about compromise. It's parties working together to get similar goals passed. We think that larger parties can stay more true to their goals and can stay more true to their platform as they have greater leverage in these kinds of negotiations. And as such, we think you still maintain the democratic nature but also force parties to work together. This leads me to my second argument about how parliamentary systems are inherently more democratic. In the status quo, we the primary elections occur from individuals who are the most extremist in the party. We see this on both the left and the right. Democrats cater almost exclusively to their most extreme base when they try to win the primary elections, cause those are the people who turn out and because they don't need to win any republican votes. Conversely, republicans appeal to the most right-wing, extremist, warhawk individuals possible and as such, both parties look odd or awkward going into the election. The result of a primary election is either that a: the candidate lied in the primary election, is not nearly extreme as they say, or b: that the candidate simply loses in the election because they are extreme as they say, and that just does not win the general. A parliamentary system will always be better as it allows people to easily identify the issues and the issues that the party stands for and as such, vote in favor of them, rather than having a candidate who flip-flops or is otherwise problematic. It's also more democratic by having a multiparty system with more options. We think the choice of democrat or republican can largely be a vacuous choice, and it's very important for other parties to come to power to create more choices for the people. My third argument is that the voting system is inherently problematic insofar as you do not vote for the principles as much as the person in the current system. With a parliamentary system, you elect the party, who can then appoint people to certain seats. This is considerably better as it makes it so it's all about the issues. The party does not really have a face, the party doesn't really have a voice or a height and as such, you only vote on the issues. In american elections, we largely see the taller candidate winning, the more attractive candidate winning. This is problematic and leads to worse policymaking overall. For this reason, we should abolish primary elections.",4.599999904632568,4.353742
"The zero-tolerance policy is needed, and fair.  Tough new laws and zero-tolerance policies can help deter the perpetrators.  A zero-tolerance policy for your children is best.  Kirk schneidawind, executive director of msba, said zero-tolerance policies are important to ensure the safety of students.  All schools should implement a ""zero tolerance policy for any act of child abuse, exploitation, violence, discrimination, bullying and other forms of abuse.  The report added that the school should adopt a ""zero tolerance"" approach to behaviour which put other pupils at risk of harm.  Schools should have a zero-tolerance policy towards bullying.  Zero tolerance policies are effective.  Every school should have a zero tolerance policy on verbal abuse.  Schools needed to be more aggressive in implementing zero-tolerance policies against the bullying of teachers by pupils.  The school has a zero-tolerance policy against bullying.  A clear and strong zero tolerance policy towards bullying must be implemented in schools.  Zero tolerance policies make schools safer.  The american school health association recommends a zero-tolerance policy for bullying and advises schools to establish and communicate a strict code of conduct, as well as offering ""instruction in social and emotional learning skills. "".  Zero tolerance is a useful and necessary tool for removing disruptive children.  Zero-tolerance strategies would improve behaviour.  Most schools have a zero tolerance policy for bully behaviors.  Zero tolerance is the only way to manage modern schools.  A zero-tolerance policy should be a key component of an effective anti-harassment program.  Zero-tolerance policies reduce violence.  Zero-tolerance policies would make schools safer.  A zero tolerance policy is important.  A zero tolerance approach is a great solution.  Schools must remain vigilant and maintain a zero tolerance policy, because racism is a pernicious blight on our society that we must never turn our gaze from.  Implementing a zero-tolerance policy toward illegal and unsafe behavior on our campus would seem to be a very productive place to start.  Participating in school zero-tolerance policies can help shape the future of bully prevention methods.  Zero tolerance policy towards unethical behaviour will improve the matter.  Education minister simon birmingham, who today calls for a ""zero tolerance approach to bad behaviour"" in schools, says the latest update on australia's performance in pisa shows 46 per cent of students in low socioeconomic schools were badly behaved, compared with 32 per cent of students in high socioeconomic schools.  A move toward a zero-tolerance policy was appropriate.  Supporters credit zero-tolerance policies have helped make students feel safe at school.  A zero-tolerance policy is needed for profanity and aggression.  A zero-tolerance policy is the best approach.  Charlie kyte, executive director of the minnesota association of school administrators, supports zero-tolerance policies by schools.  The aiou regional director, said here monday that zero tolerance policy would be adopted against miscreants and persons using unfair means during exams.  Schools must take a zero-tolerance approach to sexual abuse and harassment.  Widely used zero-tolerance policies are effective at curbing bullying behavior.  Zero-tolerance policies are the most effective.  A zero-tolerance policy will be promoted for any act of child exploitation, violence, discrimination, and other forms of abuse.  The introduction and enforcement of a zero tolerance policy would reduce ed violence.  Zero-tolerance policies save lives and prevent violence.  A zero-tolerance policy would offer the best protection.  Zero tolerance policies are necessary and fair.  Zero tolerance policies save lives and prevent violence.  Zero tolerance policies are promoted as preventing drug abuse and violence in schools.  Zero-tolerance policies ensure safe schools and make students feel safer.  Enders said school officials have imposed zero-tolerance policies to deter students from violating drug laws and using weapons.  Schools should adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards child abuse. ",4.733333110809326,4.700095
"The euro is a horrible, horrible idea that we need to completely abandon it in order to make it much more accessible to the common people.  So let's just be upfront about the harms that the euro has to economic growth, and about how it harms the developing countries that are trying to come to the economic peak that we see now.  So let's start by talking about why the euro is such a harmful idea.  And about how the idea of having a common currency that's able to be used as a currency that's able to be used as a currency that is able to be used as a currency that is able to be used as a currency that is able to be used as a currency that can be used as a currency that can be exchanged for exports, and that's and that's a major problem.  And it's also a way of doing business in a lot of ways.  So, in a lot of ways, it's a way of doing business in a lot of ways.  And it's also a way of doing business, in a lot of ways, that is, it's a much more flexible and convenient way of doing business.  It's a way of doing business that is, that is, that is something that, that is, that is, that is, that is, that is, that is, a lot easier, a lot more convenient, a lot more convenient, and one of the ways that, you can do business in the EU, a lot of ways, is through the use of the euro.  So, it's also a way of doing business in a way that, that is, it's probably, it's a way of doing business, that, it's a way of doing business, that doesn't, that isn't, that isn't, that risks, that you have to deal with these kinds of, these kinds of, these, these, these, kinds of, technical problems that, in the status quo, are major threats facing the developing countries that are trying to, you know, to, come to the economic peak that we're seeing now.  So, it's a way of doing business, and it's a way of doing business, and it's a way of doing business that is, that is, that is, it's something, that, that is, that isn't, that, that isn't, that risky, it's something that is, that is, that, that is, that, that easy, that, that, like, is a lot of things, that, are, that, that, like, like, that, like, like, that, aren't, that, major threats, but, they're not major, and they're not, they're not deadly threats, and they're the things that we need to fight, and the reason why we need to fight, and why we need to fight, and why we need to fight, is because of, and they're the way of doing business.  So, why is it bad? So, the way that it works, in most cases, when you have, when you have, you have, a currency exchange, and you have, like, a pound of currency, and you have, like, a lot of different, different, different, valuable things that you can, you know, put your economy in a lot of problems.  So, for example, when you have, when you have, you have, before you, like, a currency exchange, and you have some sort of like, economic downturn, because you're not, because you don't have like, this like physical commodity, that you're using as a currency.  So, when you have, on the other side of the, when you have an exchange, then, what you're doing is you're, again, using a commodity, that is, a currency, that is, going to, you know, hurt your economy a lot of, because, when you devalue it, again, because you're using a currency, that isn't, that is, that is, that is, that is, that is, that is, going to hurt you.  It is, it is, it is, it is, it is, it is, it is a way of doing business, it is a way of doing business, and it is, in most cases, something that is, it is, something that is, rather harmful.  So, for all those reasons, we should abandon the euro. ",2.799999952316284,2.9292214
"I would suggest that we should end blockade of the gaza strip. A couple of words on our topic. The blockade of the Gaza Strip refers to a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt from 2007 to present. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Blockade of the Gaza Strip is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. A prominent topic of discussion here is human rights. Regarding human rights, here are a few thoughts. Stopping the Gaza Blockade is actually good for peace. The Centre for Constitutional Rights also concluded that the israeli blockade was illegal. It has also concluded that the israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is illegal under international law. UNRWA and rights groups have warned that the ongoing israeli blockade is hampering the ability of Gaza's 1.8 million residents to rebuild and recover from the recent war -- the third in six years -- and is resulting in growing unrest. Thus, my understanding is that we should end blockade of the gaza strip. My opponent today may point to the advantages of blockade of the gaza strip and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention. ",4.066666603088379,3.8229966
"It is time to abolish the two-party system, which was not part of our founders' vision or our Constitution. 
Readers must be reminded, however, that two party system does not necessarily mean the existence of only two political parties but that two parties are dominant. 
It appears Obama is trying to abolish our two-party governing system by decimating the Republican Party, which will give him the control he wants to more easily destroy our nation. 
If that's what it takes to bring courage back into our political structure, then maybe we should abolish the two-party system now. 
Ventura, who says he is non-partisan and would like to abolish the two-party system, has a new book out called ""DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans: No More Gangs in Government"". 
On Saturday night it was unusual that two parties, Labor and the Liberals, were celebrating. 
The bottom line is that two parties that might negotiate a resolution do not exist. 
As to the first part of your question, we assume that two parties must agree. 
The crematorium will have facilities so that two parties can carry out their rituals simultaneously. 
Make that two parties that are happy they are playing each other in the Yates Cup. 
Article 25 is the possibility that two parties have to bring an arbitration to WTO. 
Florida law requires that two parties must consent to a recording for it to be legal. 
It remains a fact that two parties have a similar vote bank and follow similar ideology. 
As with online dating services, the aim is that two parties will find a perfect match. 
The fact is that two party members had levelled serious allegations against a third worker. 
The theory of commercial contracts is that two parties freely enter a contract on equal terms. 
Police officers believe that two parties who are known to each other were involved in the violence. 
It was seen as public rebuff of Mufti Sayeed and after that two parties drifted much. 
Mr.  Dhar also claimed that two party members were killed following the declaration of the poll results. 
The PTI chief said that two parties ruled the country over the past 30 years. 
The department received a 911 call at around 4:40 p. m.  indicating that two parties were injured. 
That means that the majority party can confirm whomever they want, without a single vote from the minority party. 
This is not the first time that a minority party has chosen to become a multiethnic party. 
This was the first time that a minority party became the main Opposition Party in Parliament. 
It became obvious that the majority party did not have their votes to pass the bill. 
The problem is with the legislation or a lack of consensus in that majority party. 
The critical factor here is that a majority party will not dominate the next Parliament. 
The reality is that there is only a limited amount that the minority party can do. 
It is not like that the majority party will always work for the mass people. 
One proposal was that a majority party should not hold the majority of committee convenerships. 
The pattern of coalition politics across Europe is that minority parties do not dictate terms. 
This changes the game such that the majority party has a limited window to maximize its advantage. 
Adding to its importance is the consideration that the majority party controlled the disciplinary process. 
The past shows that the majority party in both the House and Senate tend to lose seats. 
Especially when you consider that the majority party in parliament may not always enjoy an actual majority. 
Democrats complained that the majority party was moving too quickly on the bill, bypassing hearings. 
The districts were so unbalanced that the minority party didn't even bother to field a candidate. 
Wood stated that the minority party Republican legislators were not included in the budget development process. 
",3.4666666984558105,3.24341
"Sex selection could help with overpopulation as parents wouldn't have to keep having kids until they get the gender they wanted.  In the modern world, science can now allow a woman to know the sex of her baby.   if a woman wants her child to be a girl or boy she should have the right to do so.  Parents should be able to utilize any technological advances they wish in order to build their ideal family.  Sex selection is a safe tool to help parents attain the family they dream of, thus should be legalized.  There is nothing wrong with a family wanting a specific sex when they have a child.   this should be supported and families should be helped in any way to achieve their desired result.  Sex selection makes it easier for families to plan when having children.  Some serious genetic disorders which are linked to the sex of a child can be avoided if sex selection is allowed.  It is better to never be born than to be born to parents who do not want you, therefore, we should legalize sex selection.  Families deserve the right to choose the sex they are most comfortable raising.  Parents may have good reasons for wanting a particular sex for their child, for example medical reasons.  it should be up to them to decide.  On medical grounds there is a good argument for selecting the sex of your baby should there be an hereditary disease that might be a life limiting or painful condition.  When families are only permitted to have one child, it is important for parents to be able to select the sex of that child.  There are valid medical reasons for using sex selection to combat certain diseases.  Parents should be able to choose what sex child they are going to have.  Parents should have the right to decide what gender of child they want.  Legalizing sex selection will help parents to have the exact family makeup they have always dreamed of.  Families should have the right to choose the sex of their babies.  Legalizing sex selection is the right thing for personal freedom of choice.  Sex selection is a legitimate way to ensure that the population is balanced between men and women.  The selection of sex is a private and personal decision of the parents and must be respected.  Sex selection can prevent gender-specific diseases from being passed onto a baby.  Legalizing sex selection is a good option for people looking to have a specific sex of child.  We should legalize sex selection because it should be up to people to make that choice.  freedom of choice is vital in democracies and should be protected where possible.  Sex selection should be legal for parents to select the sex of the child.   parents with all boys or all girls should have the choice of selecting the other sex.  Legalizing medical sex selection can prevent the abortion of unwanted gendered babies.  We should legalise sex selection because some genetic diseases can only be found in either man or females and if it runs in the family then it can give the child a chance to live a normal life.  We should legalize sex selection as people have every right to chose the sex of the child they wish to raise.  We should legalize sex selection because a ban leads to dangerous back alley procedures, and to more abortions and female infanticide.  We should legalize sex selection.  if i want to have a baby girl, who has the right to deny me my wish? what if i had two boys already and don't want a third?.  We should legalize sex selection because the parents are free to decide what gender they want. ",4.5333333015441895,3.7190385
"Sinwar went on saying that the Israeli blockade that had been imposed on the Gaza Strip since 2007 has to be ended, adding that ""it will end by the peaceful marches of return, and if not, we have other means and methods to break it. 
The other demand is that the blockade of the Gaza Strip should be lifted and the humanitarian goods must be allowed to be sent to Gaza. 
Mahmat also said that blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel restrains the development of water supply and sewage services in Gaza. 
One of the most controversial issues is the Turkish demand that the blockade of the Gaza Strip will be lifted. 
The Palestinians, on the other hand, expressed disappointment over a UN report that justified the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip. 
Ambassador Kawar said that the Gaza blockade must end and reconstruction efforts must be stepped up. 
Grandi also said that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal according to the international law, adding that his agency is exerting unwavering efforts to put an end to the blockade. 
Noting that the Gaza blockade has been in place for more than a decade, he reiterated the importance of ending the economic and humanitarian crisis facing the Palestinian people. 
The Turkel panel was unanimous in concluding that the Israel Defense Forces acted in self-defense against the flotilla and that the blockade of the Gaza Strip is lawful. 
The Palestinian reconciliation deal and the opening of the Rafah border crossing to allow goods and people to enter Gaza has put paid to claims that the Israeli blockade of the Strip is inhumane. 
Faqih pointed out that the blockade of the Gaza Strip was in contravention of international humanitarian law, specifically the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention. 
Arrigoni came to Gaza on the first ships that challenged an Israeli blockade on Gaza in 2008. 
Turkey also established an inquiry, which concluded, in contrast to the Israeli inquiry, that the Gaza blockade and the Israeli raid are illegal. 
The war ended in a cease-fire agreement that eased the Israeli blockade and allowed an increase in humanitarian assistance. 
Hamas's rockets resulted in a ceasefire that eased the Israeli blockade on Gaza, giving Hamas a victory to claim. 
In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said the document was ""evidence that the Gaza blockade was planned and the target was not Hamas or the government as the occupation always claimed. 
Israel says that its Gaza blockade is legal and that it will make sure that no boat violates it, even if that means resorting to force again. 
The Popular Committee against the Siege on Gaza has warned that the Israeli blockade on the coastal enclave has imposed a calamitous humanitarian situation on the residents. 
Such a solution should provide greater security to Israel, but also give hope to civilians in Gaza that the Israeli blockade on many types of material goods will soon be eased. 
The Commission concluded that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was legal; although it criticized Israel for what it said was disproportionate use of force against the members of the IHH organization who attacked the Israeli commandos boarding the ships. 
The Turkel Commission, an independent body established in Israel to investigate and assess the events during the May 31, 2010 operation, found that the Gaza blockade and the use of force during the IDF operation were legal under international law. 
The Turkish representative on the panel strongly disagreed with its finding that the Gaza blockade is legal, citing a UN Human Rights Council report calling it unlawful. 
Gisha, an Israeli advocacy group that opposes the blockade, criticized the inquiry's conclusion that the Israeli blockade did not constitute collective punishment of the civilian population. 
It nonetheless concludes that the Israeli blockade was lawful as a matter of international law and that the Israeli enforcement operation was in the main similarly lawful. 
",3.4666666984558105,3.6948092
"We should fight global warming.  Global warming is the biggest threat humanity will face in the next one hundred years and is the biggest threat to humanity's survival in the next one hundred years.  The rising sea levels are already destroying cities and killing people.  We think that when the average temperature in the world goes up by four degrees celsius over the course of just the last century, we're going to see the worst impacts of global warming in the next one hundred years.  It's already killing people and displacing people, and it's only going to get worse.  The impacts of global warming are already starting to be felt in the US and EU.  We think that the only way to stop the progression of global warming is to drastically change the way that we are behaving right now and to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  The only way to do this is to drastically change the way that we use energy and the way we interact with the rest of the world.  We need to drastically increase the amount of nuclear fusion that we put into the nuclear power plant, the amount of solar power we put into our power grid.  We need to drastically change the way that we use oil.  We need to drastically change the way that we use fossil fuels.  We need to drastically change the way that we use the sun's energy.  We need to drastically change the way that we use water.  We need to drastically change how we use fossil fuels.  We need to drastically change the way that we use energy in general.  It's very clear that we need to drastically change the way we interact with the world.  It's just a question of how and when we do it.  We need to drastically change the way that we use energy, and it's the only way to do it.  But the climate change that we're facing is even worse than the worst impacts of global warming, and if we don't drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world, we're only going to get more extreme weather events, more droughts, more powerful storms, and the worst impacts of those things.  We think that the only way to make the world more livable in the future, the only way to make the world more livable in the long term, is to drastically change the way that we use energy.  And that's the only way to stop global warming from taking a worse turn.  The only way to stop global warming is to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  It's the only way to stop global warming from taking over the earth and destroying the most important cities in the world.  It's the only way to stop global warming from completely destroying the earth.  And if we do that, we're going to be able to have the same type of peace and prosperity that we have right now.  We think that in the future, the only way to stop global warming is to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  We think that the world has reached a tipping point where we need to drastically change the way that we use energy.  We need to drastically change the way that we use fossil fuels.  We need to drastically change how we use nuclear fusion.  We need to drastically change how we use solar energy.  And the only way to do that is to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  We think that the only way to do that is to drastically change the way that we use energy so that we don't have to use it as much.  We think that that's the only way to make the world more livable in the long term.  We think that the only way to do that is to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  We think that the only way to do that is to drastically change the way that we use energy so that we don't have to use it as much.  And that's the only way to stop global warming from taking over.  For these reasons, we should fight global warming. ",4.599999904632568,4.0250573
"This will create additional jobs.  (because higher excise taxes would raise businesses' costs, they would reduce the tax base for income and payroll taxes.  As long as revenues are returned to consumers or spent on economically beneficial public investments such as improvements to transportation or education, high fuel taxes benefit the economy overall.  Energy conservation and emission reductions are also justified to minimize climate change emissions.  Fuel can be sold at a lower price since the tax was not paid, which allows the seller to gain more customers and earn increased profits through criminal activity.  Better fuel mileage, hybrids and electric cars are contributing to a decline in fuel tax revenue.  Increased fuel efficiency for both cars and trucks means more miles traveled on highways while paying less to the governments to travel those miles.  Research by the european environment agency indicates that it has reduced emissions compared with what would have otherwise occurred (eea, 2000).  Revenues can be used to reduce taxes, provide rebates, or finance new public services, including energy conservation programs.  Short-term fuel savings consist of reduced driving and a shift toward more fuel-efficient vehicles owned in multi-vehicle households.  Fuel tax increases, such as carbon taxes, tend to reduce traffic casualties.  In addition, fuel taxation can be used to spur improvements in fuel efficiency, encourage the use of alternative and cleaner fuels, and promote less polluting forms of transport.  Artificially low fuel prices also reduce the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies.  One reason the fund is going broke: president obama's push for fuel efficient cars has resulted in better mileage, and fewer stops at the pump.  For oil consuming nations, reduced fuel consumption reduces the economic costs of importing petroleum.  Fuel-intensive industries are often able to obtain concessions and exemptions that reduce the effects of such taxes.  Birks are great for walking (saves gas, improves health) and they can be resoled which makes them more cost effective in the long run.  It could eliminate more than a million jobs in the first few years. "".  The tax will increase gradually and predictably so consumers and businesses can take higher future energy costs into account when making long-term decisions, such as vehicle purchases and building locations.  Higher fuel prices encourage more efficient transportation and fuel conservation.  Such tax shifts can provide overall economic, environmental and social benefits (norland and ninassi, 1998; litman, 2009).  Raising current fuel taxes encourages consumers to develop energy efficient travel patterns, which reduces their exposure to economic risks from future fuel price increases.  Over the long-term, higher fuel prices encourage consumers to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.  High fossil-fuel prices also improve the economics of other alternatives that can reduce ghg emissions and improve energy security, such as energy efficiency and unconventional energy sources.  Although often regarded as a cost increase, revenue-neutral carbon taxes actually offer households a new opportunity to save money by conserving energy.  Since the 2007-09 recession increased motor vehicle efficiencies and reduced 'vehicle miles traveled' (vmt) have reduced total petroleum motor fuels consumption and associated excise taxes by over 10%.  The gas tax creates the incentive to drive less! and drive more efficiently.  Indeed, fuel taxes can be designed to help promote positive side effects.  Benefits and costsincreasing fuel taxes is an effective energy conservation and emission reduction strategy, results in modest vehicle travel reductions, and provides revenue.  The tax increase can be expected to reduce sales of motor fuel below the pre-tax level.  Fuel tax revenue can be used to cross-subsidize local public transport.  Carbon taxes are effective at supporting virtually all forms of energy conservation, and provide many additional benefits.  Carbon taxes provide an incentive to reduce fossil fuel consumption and increase fuel efficiency. ",3.933333396911621,4.1036057
"A recall election could solve that problem.  Opposing the idea of a recall election goes against our constitution and the wishes of our state's founding fathers.  The recall process is a statutory right provided to citizens by our great state.  A recall election is a way for the voters to provide a job review of their elected officials.  Wisconsin's recall elections are shining examples of the rule of law to limit unfair governmental actions.  Recall elections are a fundamental right and legal interpretations must be liberally construed to protect that right.  The recall election is very important with national implications.  The recall election is important enough to participate in.  The power of recall is a powerful tool of direct democracy.  Recall election is connected to the right of suffrage, which is a fundamental right.  The report added that the senator pointed out that recall election is connected to the right of suffrage, which is a fundamental right.  A recall is usually the best way for people to call out officials they don't agree with on issues.  A recall election might be desirable.  A lot more recall elections are needed.  A recall election is a wonderful exercise in democracy and should be respected.  The recall election would not harm the city.  A recall election of newman is exactly what the voters want.  The recall election is not only necessary, it is imperative if the electorate is to maintain control over the body politic.  A recall election will be the most effective means of seeking persky's removal.  A recall election is the most democratic and cost-effective way to remove the mayor from office.  A recall election actually brings a community together.  Hamilton said recall elections are designed to remove officials for criminal behavior, malfeasance or gross neglect.  Recall election is inevitable.  Jerry thomas, who voted this morning at webster stanley elementary school, said the recall election is very important with national implications.  Yes, the power of recall is an important tool for voters.  The recall elections might actually benefit the community.  The money we spend on recall petitions and recall elections is well worth it.  Introducing the power of recall will help reverse this and reengage people in democracy.  If the recall election will satisfy some of the critics, then they should pursue it.  Fred joseph, a frequent house candidate from charleston, said he would support a recall election, stating, ""it's a simple matter of accountability. "".  In other words, allowing recall elections will help to restore faith in politics and encourage active citizenship.  A recall election is the ultimate measure of accountability, and it forces politicians to be honest and up front with the voters.  Recall elections demonstrate the will of the people and provide for a swift, decisive remedy when corruption rears its ugly head.  The recent recall election may have helped to energize both local voters and candidates.  The recall election is perfectly legal.  A recall election is the proper avenue for voters.  A recall election would be good for the city and its residents.  A recall election can be a positive event.  A recall petition is an important democratic tool, a way for voters to remove local politicians who have proven themselves indifferent, incompetent, or worse.  The recall elections are necessary to right wrongs that weren't campaigned on in the first place.  The power of recall is a constitutional right retained by the voters to remind their representatives that they are accountable to the people at all times and not special interest.  Recall elections are appropriate for removing those that have violated a code of ethics or criminal laws.  Recall elections are a tool voters can use to kick bad officials out of office. ",4.599999904632568,4.238461
"We should have a national don't subsidize the production of goods.  Three main areas of clash, first on why we think it's important that manufacturers continue the use of tobacco.  Recognize that tobacco is incredibly addictive and it's very unhealthy.  Recognize it's been proven time and time again that it leads to lung cancer, it leads to early death, and it's the largest killer in the united states.  We think that the government needs to step in to limit the amount of tobacco that we consume given that it is the cause of so many of the deaths that we see.  We think that what the government is doing is giving the citizens a lower quality of life.  We think that it's it's not good to just say don't smoke tobacco, it's not good to just say don't consume tobacco as well.  We also think that it's not good to just say don't use tobacco because you wouldn't know how to get to the counterfactual if you didn't smoke tobacco.  Recognize that many of the people who are using tobacco are not using it to help their own survival but rather to help their own economic survival.  We think that in the same way that we don't think it's good that people are dying before they use tobacco and it's not good that people are dying before they use tobacco, we think that the government needs to intervene to limit the amount of tobacco that they are consuming given the harms that are intrinsic to it.  We also think that the government needs to limit the amount of tobacco that they are consuming to create a clear public health impact.  Recognize that this is something that is very easily taken away.  It's something that is very easily taken away from you.  The amount of tobacco that you're consuming in any given day in any given week is vastly different from the amount of tobacco that you were consuming in your life before it was taken away.  We think that in the same way that it is not good that we don't think smokers have an equal amount of smoking to non-smokers, it is not good that we don't think smokers have an equal amount of smoking to non-smokers.  We think that in the same way in that it is not good that we don't think smokers have an equal amount of lung cancer but that they are more likely to die at a younger age, it is also not good that we don't think that they have an equal amount of lung cancer.  Recognize that tobacco is incredibly addictive and very very unhealthy.  Recognize that it's been proven time and time again that it leads to lung cancer, it leads to other illnesses that are incredibly bad.  Recognize that it is incredibly easy to give a cigarette to a smoker, it's very easy to give a cigarette to someone who's not a smoker and it will kill them.  It's a horrible way of trying to get a cigarette.  We think that we need to limit the amount that we are consuming so that we can create a clear public health impact.  We also think that it's essential that we don't subsidize tobacco because it's bad for the smoker.  Recognize that the government is first, trying to entrench its own culture in the tobacco market; second, trying to create a culture in which it is no longer offering new tobacco; and third, trying to create a sense of acceptance for these smokers that are so young that it no longer wants to offer them tobacco in the first place.  These are all three ways that the government is trying to entrench its own culture in tobacco but none of them are mutually exclusive and if we don't subsidize tobacco we think that all three of these harms are being taken away from the smoker.  For these reasons, we should not subsidize tobacco. ",1.9333332777023315,4.0992846
"Use of the AI should be abandoned. And I hope that the computer debater won't be offended here. It's nothing personal. I promise. That said, we see two main reasons why the use of AI should be abandoned. The first is that we think that the long term risks are generally going to outweigh the short term benefits, and the second is about the trade off in research and development funds. So to focus on the long term risks and the short term benefits of artificial intelligence. It's certainly true that increasing use of artificial intelligence in manufacturing and other industries has increased global economic products. It would be very difficult to produce the amount of automobiles we do right now for instance without automated factories. However these benefits largely accrue in the short term and we think that ultimately a few harms are going to outweigh them: the first is the massive destruction of the economy. We've already seen many people laid off because automation has taken away their jobs. But this is fundamentally different than other technologies. No one would advocate for getting rid of cars just to keep horses employed, but we think that it's quite likely that in the future people will be largely unnecessary for most industries if AI keeps improving at a quick rate. For instance, we think that AI is very soon going to completely replace trucking, manufacturing jobs, and some of the other most common professions in the united states, and leave tens of millions of people unemployed. Right now the american welfare system does not have a way to cope with tens of millions of people suddenly becoming unemployed. Now, an optimist would say that other jobs will come along to let these people do work. But we think it's likely that soon AI will be so good that it can design new AI to do its job even better and replace even more human workers. And what's more, that because payroll tends to be the most expensive part of running a business, that corporations will do everything they can to lay off as many people as possible and not offer them new jobs. So we think that this is going to be fundamentally different than previous technologies that temporarily destructed the labor market, and that this could very well prevent humans from participating in the labor market at all in the long to medium term. We could be the first generation that sees unemployment in western countries rise over fifty percent, and it will be because of automation. But moreover, not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, that no one knows just how powerful AI is going to get. What happens when people outsource major policy decisions to AI, because it's seen as neutral? Which is something they're already discussing in the US as a solution to gerrymandering. To have an artificial intelligence design our voting districts. We think that ultimately an AI could make decisions that aren't the best for people and everyone will go along with them because they're seen as neutral or because a few people in power want to go along with it. So we think that there's a risk to great dependence on AI undermining our society in many ways. And our second argument is that this is a poor use of r and d funds. To be frank it just seems to me that research and development should be focused on alleviating the most serious harms and artificial intelligence doesn't really play into that. Right now there are eight hundred million people in food insecurity around the globe and hundreds of millions who lack access to clean water. Coming up with more effective ways to distribute food and more effective ways to ensure that people have access to the resources that they need seems like a much better use of r and d funds than making a ford slightly cheaper and more efficient to produce. And what's more, we also think that this trades off with medical funding which could save people's lives. Now some might say that artificial intelligence will increase economic growth and that a rising tide lifts all boats, but as long as millions of people are dying from easily preventable diseases like diabetes, that don't have a cure yet, we think that that money would always be better spent on something like a cure for diabetes than it is on these machines. For all these reasons, the use of AI should be abandoned. Thank you.",4.5333333015441895,4.6188107
"I would suggest that we should ban organic food. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Next, I would like to discuss issues related to why organic produce is expensive. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the negative side of organic food. First, I want to address the cost of organic food. Organic food is expensive because organic products are often twice the price of any other products. Organic produce is expensive to produce, the growers we work with prefer to keep their food affordable and accessible. Regarding a different issue, organic food production would cause environmental damage such as GHG emissions from tractor use, destruction of natural habitat from farming and emissions from shipping organic food to retail. Sir -- Bjorn Lomborg says that ""organic food is bad for your health and wealth"". In light of my points, I believe that we should ban organic food. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. Thank you for listening. ",4.4666666984558105,4.440513
"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should abolish primary elections. Today's debate is about the future, and about humanity's endless potential to move forward and not get stuck with old, cumbersome habits and structures that hold it back. The discussion today is about moving on. Traditional habits and norms can get dated. Society should move on with the times, instead of clinging to old and obsolete traditions which are no longer relevant. The creation of an open primary system would be unconstitutional. Direct primaries would lead to crisis and violence. I hope I relayed the message that we should abolish primary elections. Today, my opponent will possibly oppose change, saying that what we have already is good enough. I would like to know what is the evidence backing this claim and showing the great results of the current system. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ",3.4666666984558105,4.0138807
"Vocational skills can lead to secure and fulfilling lives in a fast changing competitive world.  Vocational training is an effective tool for poverty reduction and for producing a skilled human resource for resource-constrained.  Vocational training is a very important part of the educational process.  Vocational training is very important for our country.  Vocational training can play an important role in the bethlehem governorate because of its economic and tourist potential.  Vocational training is very important, and valuable, as well.  Vocational training is the best way to reduce student debt and strengthen the middle class.  Vocational training can often be just as beneficial to the lives of disadvantaged children as western education.  Vocational training is the most effective solution for optimizing youth employability.  Vocational skills are vital for poverty reduction, economic recovery and sustainable development.  Vocational training is proven to contribute significantly to youth employment creation.  Vocational training contributes to the country's development.  Vocational training is a catalyst for self-employment and that is why the government attaches great importance to vocational education and training.  Worldwide technical and vocational skills played a critical role in economic development.  Vocational education is important, can lead to challenging work and careers, and is vital to our county's future.  Vocational training is the answer to stemming the dropout rate and crucial to the development of a strong emirati workforce.  Vocational training is an important constituent in reducing poverty and unemployment from the country.  Vocational education is valuable for both students and the business community, and can lead directly to well-paying jobs.  Vocational education is one key aspect of developing and expanding this sector.  Vocational skills are a key to success.  Vocational skills can solve the problem of unemployment in the country.  Vocational training is good for the country because it equips young people with skills that put them in a position to join the mainstream of nation-building.  Vocational training will be the key contributor to workplace survival.  Vocational education is one of the fastest and most effective means to reduce poverty as children in poverty-stricken areas are more focused on getting jobs than taking tests.  Vocational training is the only effective tool for poverty reduction and to produce a skilled human resource for the resource constraint.  Vocational training can lead to high-paying jobs.  Vocational training is one of the important areas that will facilitate the country's rapid growth.  Vocational education leads to full development and maturity.  Vocational training is a cost-effective way of raising productivity.  Vocational training was an important tool towards empowering the people through self employment or being employed.  Vocational training has proven to contribute significantly to youth employment creation as vocational studies provide skills to the youth.  Vocational training has become necessary for economic and social development, given its impact on the labour market, and role in simulating economic growth.  Vocational skills contribute to governments' efforts towards national growth and development.  Vocational training helps to create more jobs by equipping students with skills that enable them to start up their own jobs.  Vocational training and skills training would play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between employment and opportunities.  Vocational education played a key role in a country's economic and social development.  Vocational training and skilling are very important components of school education.  Vocational training was an integral part of national development strategy designed to reduce the burden of unemployment and poverty.  Vocational education training had a positive impact on wages, employment, mobility and employment opportunity.  Vocational training was a way of developing skills and potential for self-sufficiency.  Vocational training is important for industrialisation.  Vocational education is the solution to empower the youth with much-needed knowledge, values and skills.  Vocational training and education was important in a modern economy. ",4.4666666984558105,4.866782
"But he also believes the ""tightening up"" of rules against ""low-level"" behaviors such as disrupting class has contributed to a safer atmosphere in schools today.  Building in flexibility can make policies less vulnerable to legal challenge.  On the face of it zero tolerance sounds like a simple solution to a complex problem.  [ 9 ]zero tolerance policies increase the number of school resource officers (sro) in schools, which increases the contact a student has with the criminal justice system.  Our policy allows kids to make mistakes without ending their academic careers.  A february 2001 aba resolution opposing zero-tolerance policies admits: ""zero tolerance has become a one-size-fits-all solution to all the problems schools confront.  Zero tolerance is not only ineffective in reducing violence or crime in schools but has also created a ""school-to-prison pipeline. "".  [ 1 ]these policies are promoted as preventing drug abuse and violence in schools.  Zero tolerance gives an illusory impression of a strong moral stance being implemented with the noble objective of tackling serious misbehavior problems.  A method that relies on communication between students, teachers, and others improves accountability and school safety.  Strickland feels adopting such a policy in the hart district would prevent a furtherance of campus hate crimes and hate verbal abuse.  Zero tolerance allows them to to not have to make a decision.  Alternatives include restorative justice and multi­tiered behavioral health programs, which are designed to help kids improve their behavior while keeping them in school.  This way, we can ensure that our children don't become the victims of bullying.  With proper awareness and the knowledge that it can bring it will be much easier to help eradicate bullying and prevent future issues .  This improves student academic performance, classroom climate, decreases chances of student drop out, and reduces the risk of a student becoming involved with the incarceration system.  Also an enforceable requirement on investigators to investigate properly and fully would be a valuable addition, reducing the excesses of zero tolerance.  Supporters of zero tolerance argue the strict policies make schools safer and are a necessary disciplinary measure, especially at a time when school violence has grabbed the nation's attention.  Civil rights and education activists say the policy can be a model for the nation.  Supporters of zero tolerance policies contend that they promote the safety and well-being of school children and send a powerful message of deterrence.  Zero tolerance also makes administration simpler.  Instead of zero tolerance and authoritarian punishment, restorative practices provide high levels of control and support, which encourage appropriate behavior and place the responsibility for resolution on students themselves.  People who support zero-tolerance policies believe they promote safety in schools and give everyone involved more peace of mind.  They contend that such polices can be communicated clearly and forcefully to students so they understand that discipline will be immediate and predictable.  Zero tolerance policies are liked by some because they're applied uniformly and help deter ""bad behavior. "".  [ 9 ]another study says that zero tolerance policies are viewed as a quick fix solution for student problems.  [ 15 ]the most direct way these policies increase the probability of a youth coming into contact with the incarceration system is through their exclusionary methods.  The idea is that if the problems can be removed from the classroom, it will be easier for everyday school functions to take place.  The goal is to eliminate zero-tolerance policies that lawmakers say have led to mandatory expulsions for bringing a fake gun to school or getting into a minor scuffle.  Zero tolerance policies are an easy way for school systems to avoid lawsuits, plain and simple.  Schools adopt zero-tolerance policies to allow administrators to impose serious penalties for even minor violations to reinforce the overall importance of following the rules. ",3.5999999046325684,4.0860767
"This may lead to more deserving politicians being elected into office.  There is a need for a new system of doing things like this.  It is important that everyones voices be heard.  Alternative vote allows voters more of a choice of what to believe and be more involved in the democratic process.  The alternative vote is a crucial part of any democratic system.  The two-party system is broken and doesnt work well.  The alternative vote will make sure more peoples voices are heard.  People have shown that they do not always get the representation they need in government so we need to introduce compulsory voting.  The alternative vote is a crucial part of ensuring the voice and needs of the people are heard.  The alternative vote is an essential part of democracy; it keeps everyone in check and allows for the vigorous pursuit of high quality candidates.  Alternative voting would lead to a fairer and more accurate representation of political leanings in government.  The alternative vote is a must for democracy and is a must for all people to have their voices heard.  The alternative vote is a way to have your say in the election.  Compulsory voting  would disenfranchise a lot of people.   its better to.  Compulsory voting  would improve voter turn out and ensure that everyone is fairly represented.  The alternative vote is an important part of creating a system of political engagement that would encourage more people to take an interest in politics through voter turn out.  The alternative vote is a must to ensure that no one can claim they didnt get a say in the election.  The alternative vote is a way of promoting voter participation, which would lead to a more representative system of parliament.  The alternative vote should be introduced as this will ensure that no one can claim they didnt get a say even if they did.  We should introduce the alternative vote because it would eliminate voter suppression and give more of the choice of who to vote for.  We should introduce the alternative vote because it would lead to a fairer system of elected officials.  We should introduce alternative voting because it will lead to a fairer and more accurate representation of the population in parliament.  We should introduce alternative voting because it is way better than having a system where the two-party system gives us lesser of two evils every presidential election.  two-party system leads to compromise, it would be better if we had a third party system.  We should introduce the alternate vote because it is a way to have your say and be a part of the decision making process.  We should introduce alternative voting as it will give more of the peoples opinion.  We should introduce a alternative vote system because people have a right to choose who to vote for.   if everyone had to vote they would be more informed and have a fair view of whats going on.  We should introduce alternative voting because is helpful in making sure that everyone is fairly represented.  We should introduce the alternative votes because it would give us many new ways of thinking and new ways of thinking.  We should introduce the alternative vote because it would lead to more deserving politicians being elected into office.  We should introduce the alternative vote because it allows for greater freedom of choice for the people to choose between sets of ideas they want to govern the country.  We should introduce the alternative vote because it would lead to a fairer and more accurate representation of the population in parliament.  We should introduce the alternative vote so that we have a fairer and equal distribution of results. ",4.400000095367432,4.4199543